NationStates Jolt Archive


ECO-Terrorists held by Japenese Whalers for Piracy

Pages : [1] 2
1010102
17-01-2008, 04:43
TOKYO - Protesters scored a victory in a high-seas campaign to disrupt Japan's whale hunt in the Antarctic, forcing the fleet to a standstill Wednesday while officials scrambled to unload two activists who used a rubber boat to get on board a harpoon vessel.

The face-off was a rapid escalation of the annual contest between the fleet that carries out Japan's controversial whale hunt in southern waters and the environmentalist groups that try to stop it.

The founder of the Sea Shepherd anti-whaling group, Paul Watson, told The Associated Press by satellite phone that the Japanese are targeting vulnerable whale stocks and said his organization will keep harassing the fleet.


Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:0

"We will chase them until they stop their hunt," Watson said from the bridge of the Steve Irwin, a Sea Shepherd vessel. "As long as we are chasing them, they aren't killing whales."

Japanese officials said a Greenpeace boat also was shadowing the whaling fleet.

Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:0

Watson claimed the two activists were being held as "hostages" on the Japanese harpoon ship Yushin Maru 2, but no Sea Shepherd boat had been sent to retrieve them.

Japan condemned the incident, calling the boarding of harpoon boat an act of "piracy" and accusing Sea Shepherd of stalling a handover of the activists to get publicity.

Authorities repeatedly tried to contact Sea Shepherd to arrange a return of the activists, but the group didn't responding and its boat appeared to be speeding from the area, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tomohiko Taniguchi said.


Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:1

Oh yes lets feel sorry for what amounts to atemped pirates. They should have been thrown in a cell for this.



Taniguchi said the Japanese whaling boat was chasing the Steve Irwin in an attempt to return the protesters, but he declined to disclose the vessels' locations, citing security concerns.

"These people aren't hostages, they're unwanted guests," he said. "We want them off our ship immediately, but they're not giving us the chance."

Japanese officials said Sea Shepherd must agree not to attack the whaling vessel during any rendezvous to turn over the two protesters. Watson refused to comply, demanding an "unconditional" release.

"When people hold hostages and make demands, that's the behavior of a terrorist organization," he said. "I'm not going to acquiesce to their demands."(Oh, the Irony. Terrorists accusing people of being Terrorists)

Hmm, seems to me like the Eco-terrorists are trying to use them for black mail. But it isn't working. If you can't even keep the details that shoot your story down, you shouldn't try to blackmail them.

Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:2

Japan was considering transferring the two activists to a third party, such as the Australian government, fisheries officials said. An Australian government ship, the Ocean Viking, was in southern waters although neither side announced a handover deal.

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith called for caution on both sides.

"We're dealing with the great distance of the southern ocean. The capacity for adverse incidents is high, and the capacity for rescue or assistance is low," he said.

An official at the Japanese Fisheries Agency, Takahide Naruko, said the fleet would not resume its planned hunt of about 1,000 whales until the activists were handed over. He said there was "no telling what Sea Shepherd would do" if the fleet hunted with the activists on board.

Activists jumped onto ship
The two protesters — Benjamin Potts, 28, of Australia and Giles Lane, 35, of Britain — jumped from a rubber boat onto the deck of the Yushin Maru 2 in the icy waters off Antarctica on Tuesday after a high-speed chase.

Sea Shepherd protesters earlier attacked the harpoon ship with bottles of acid and tried to entangle its propellers, both Japanese officials and Watson said.

Watson claimed the two activists were not involved in throwing the acid and said they intended only to board the ship to deliver a protest letter.

The men were detained and briefly tied up. Watson alleged the Japanese crew assaulted the activists, which Japanese officials denied.

"It is completely illegal to board anyone's vessel ... on the high seas," said Glenn Inwood, a spokesman for Japan's Institute for Cetacean Research, which organizes the hunt. "So this can be seen as nothing more than an act of piracy by the Sea Shepherd group."

Japan sent ships to Antarctica in November to kill minke and fin whales under a program that skirts an international moratorium on commercial whaling.

The ban allows limited hunts for scientific research, a loophole Japan has used to kill nearly 10,000 whales over the past two decades, according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Opponents say Japan's program is commercial whaling in disguise because the meat is later sold on the market. Environmentalists say Japan's hunts are detrimental to vulnerable whale populations in the area.

Japan's top government spokesman defended the catch.

"The activists are obstructing what are legal activities in international waters, and in an extremely dangerous way," Nobutaka Machimura said. "Japan strongly condemns these actions."

The whaling fleet's mother ship, the Nisshin Maru, has been chased 435 miles from the standoff scene by a boat belonging to the environmental group Greenpeace, Japanese officials said.

Despite the disruptions, Japan has no intention of calling off the hunt, said Taniguchi, the Foreign Ministry spokesman.

"It's clear the situation is very grave," he said. "But I can tell you, Japan has no plans to quit."

These pirates need to lay off Whalers. The sooner they just realize that this will probably get them declared pirates in more countries than the UK. They had two of their ships striken from the british records basiclymeaning that if they show up British wtaers and diprut whiling, they can boarded and siezed as pirates. I hope these idiots get prosocuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Bann-ed
17-01-2008, 04:47
I don't exactly agree with how they are going about protecting whales, but I have to admit, "Sea Shepherd" is an awesome title. I see some guy dressed in the sort of clothes Jesus is depicted wearing, holding a shepherd's crook over his head while balancing on a makeshift wooden raft upon the roiling seas. As whales leap out of the water in unison of course.

I wish I was a Sea Shepherd. :(
Free Soviets
17-01-2008, 04:53
(Oh, the Irony. Terrorists accusing people of being Terrorists)

sea shepherds ≠ terrorists
Free Soviets
17-01-2008, 04:54
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-15-01.asp

"The Sea Shepherd vessel the Steve Irwin..."

fuck yeah! or rather, crickeys!
Straughn
17-01-2008, 04:55
Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:0



Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:0



Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:1

Oh yes lets feel sorry for what amounts to atemped pirates. They should have been thrown in a cell for this.



Hmm, seems to me like the Eco-terrorists are trying to use them for black mail. But it isn't working. If you can't even keep the details that shoot your story down, you shouldn't try to blackmail them.

Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:2



These pirates need to lay off Whalers. The sooner they just realize that this will probably get them declared pirates in more countries than the UK. They had two of their ships striken from the british records basiclymeaning that if they show up British wtaers and diprut whiling, they can boarded and siezed as pirates. I hope these idiots get prosocuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Obviously Australia is terrorist in nature too.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-15-01.asp

Should consider ...
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=28&ContentID=54799
1010102
17-01-2008, 04:56
I don't exactly agree with how they are going about protecting whales, but I have to admit, "Sea Shepherd" is an awesome title. I see some guy dressed in the sort of clothes Jesus is depicted wearing, holding a shepherd's crook over his head while balancing on a makeshift wooden raft upon the roiling seas. As whales leap out of the water in unison of course.

I wish I was a Sea Shepherd. :(

It is an awesome name, but they are pirates.(Proof that Ninjas are better:) )
Velkya
17-01-2008, 04:57
Are these hunts taking place in international waters or Japan's own territory?
1010102
17-01-2008, 04:59
Obviously Australia is terrorist in nature too.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-15-01.asp

Should consider ...
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=28&ContentID=54799

The differnce is that Ausralila is taking the legal road, instead of illegally boarding a vessel, and demanding the captain of the ship.
Velkya
17-01-2008, 05:03
Presumably you aren't referring to the party which is illegally hunting the whales as the eco-terrorists?

Yarrr mateys, there be booty in these here waterss!

Then we should haul it aboard and share a drink with it, no?
1010102
17-01-2008, 05:04
sea shepherds ≠ terrorists

Terrorism, in the modern sense, is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.

They are known to carry weapons, thrown mild acid at whalers and ram their oppenents. How is that not terrorism?
Esoteric Wisdom
17-01-2008, 05:04
Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:2
Presumably you aren't referring to the party which is illegally hunting the whales as the eco-terrorists?

Yarrr mateys, there be booty in these here waterss!
1010102
17-01-2008, 05:06
Presumably you aren't referring to the party which is illegally hunting the whales as the eco-terrorists?

Yarrr mateys, there be booty in these here waterss!

No i mean Sea Shepard...
Hoyteca
17-01-2008, 05:07
It is an awesome name, but they are pirates.(Proof that Ninjas are better:) )

No, the food chain goes:

ninja pirates (type of pirate) eats-> pirate ninjas (type of ninja)->vikings->pirates->ninjas->modern pirates->internet pirates.

These guys are modern pirates. They are at the bottom of the modern pirate food chain, right where internet pirate and modern pirates overlap.

These hippy terrorists are just looking for publicity, like terrorists that fire from crowded civillian areas. Can't take out the missile launchers without a few dozen civillian casualties.
Marrakech II
17-01-2008, 05:14
"The Sea Shepherd vessel the Steve Irwin..."

fuck yeah! or rather, crickeys!

What's messed up about that ship is the flag they fly: http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs15/f/2007/019/b/5/Bitch_I_will_sting_you_by_Animal_Stamp.gif
1010102
17-01-2008, 05:14
What's messed up about that ship is the flag they fly: http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs15/f/2007/019/b/5/Bitch_I_will_sting_you_by_Animal_Stamp.gif

LOL. "Its completely harmless mates. " (tail thrash) *THUNK*
Free Soviets
17-01-2008, 05:17
...

did wiki really declare that war and policing are terrorism?
HSH Prince Eric
17-01-2008, 05:18
"Sea Shepherd protesters earlier attacked the harpoon ship with bottles of acid and tried to entangle its propellers, both Japanese officials and Watson said.

Watson claimed the two activists were not involved in throwing the acid and said they intended only to board the ship to deliver a protest letter."

Oh of course they weren't. Just like the protesters who are arrested are never those that were fighting with police and breaking shit. Why the Japanese crew didn't crack their skulls open and throw them in the ocean is the biggest eye opener here.

If someone threw acid at me, I'd kill them. There's no doubt about it. Feed them to the whales.
Librustralia
17-01-2008, 05:21
Eco-terrorists? You mean those terrorists who are commercially hunting innocent whales illegally in an Australian whale SANCTUARY?

PS. I have met Sea Shepherd crew members, they are not "terrorists" but they're people who genuinely want to help the planet and stop environmental injustice.
1010102
17-01-2008, 05:24
did wiki really declare that war and policing are terrorism?

Damn mouse. Thought i copy and pasted the whole parahraph.

Terrorism, in the modern sense,[1] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.
Majority 12
17-01-2008, 05:25
Good on the Sea Shepherds for impeding the whalers. DERP DERP SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INTO WHAT IT TAKES TO KILL A WHALE.
Free Soviets
17-01-2008, 05:25
Just like the protesters who are arrested are never those that were fighting with police and breaking shit.

we typically aren't the ones arrested. certainly the vast bulk of the hundreds that are routinely arrested at protests are not involved in helping the direct actionists. they wouldn't get arrested if they were and had those kinds of numbers.
1010102
17-01-2008, 05:28
Eco-terrorists? You mean the whalers who are commercially hunting innocent whales illegally in an Australian whale SANCTUARY?

They were in Antarctic Waters, not Australian.

EDIT:Wow. Way to give an animal feelings. Thats half the problem, people watch Bambi when they are kids and it horrifies them and doesn't want to make them do anything that might ever hurt any animal, ever.(Did you know every time you wash your hands you are killing organisms that might one day evolve and feel pain? Save the Germs!)
Bann-ed
17-01-2008, 05:30
They were in Antarctic Waters, not Australian.

You do know that water floats around all over right?:rolleyes:
It is very possible that some Australian water headed south towards Antarctica and the whales followed the current.
Just because the water isn't in its normal spot doesn't mean it shouldn't have diplomatic immunity.
Straughn
17-01-2008, 05:40
EDIT:Wow. Way to give an animal feelings.
For fuck's sake, don't say such preposterously stupid shit like this.
Xomic
17-01-2008, 05:40
I doubt claims of piracy will hold up in court.

frankly, it should be Australia and other nations out there stopping this Japanese whaling ship, not a bunch of brave souls with too much money/boats.
1010102
17-01-2008, 05:40
You do know that water floats around all over right?:rolleyes:
It is very possible that some Australian water headed south towards Antarctica and the whales followed the current.
Just because the water isn't in its normal spot doesn't mean it shouldn't have diplomatic immunity.

The Whalers were in International waters. The Sea Sheaperd picks and choses which UN laws about the sea it follows. Legal waters are 12 nm from the coast of that nation, with a 200 nm exlusive economic zone from the coast. This gives Austrailla no legal control on what goes on there.
1010102
17-01-2008, 05:43
For fuck's sake, don't say such preposterously stupid shit like this.

I meant Emotional feelings. I am not denying they feel pain. He syas they are Innocent. Being Innocent or guilty means you have a choice about what you do. They do not act on choice, they act on instinct. BIG differnce.
Bann-ed
17-01-2008, 05:45
The Whalers were in International waters. The Sea Sheaperd picks and choses which UN laws about the sea it follows. Legal waters are 12 nm from the coast of that nation, with a 200 nm exlusive economic zone from the coast. This gives Austrailla no legal control on what goes on there.

"Water is hell." -Last surviving whale of the Antarctic Massacre of every single year since people started hunting whales.
1010102
17-01-2008, 05:48
"Water is hell." -Last surviving whale of the Antarctic Massacre of every single year since people started hunting whales.

They'd do it to us if they were sentient and had opposable thumbs that didn't get sucked into their flippers.
Bann-ed
17-01-2008, 05:53
They'd do it to us if they were sentient and had opposable thumbs that didn't get sucked into their flippers.

But they aren't and they can't.
So?

It's like beating up a paraplegic and saying "He'd hit me back if he could move, lulz". :(
Librustralia
17-01-2008, 05:53
They were in Antarctic Waters, not Australian.

EDIT:Wow. Way to give an animal feelings. Thats half the problem, people watch Bambi when they are kids and it horrifies them and doesn't want to make them do anything that might ever hurt any animal, ever.(Did you know every time you wash your hands you are killing organisms that might one day evolve and feel pain? Save the Germs!)

..last time I checked, it was the Australian territory of Antarctic waters... and even if it was international waters, whaling still wouldn't be justified.

I have never watched Bambi, nor am I completely sentimental. There is no justification for unnecessarily killing a sentient life and not taking his/her suffering into consideration. I'm not giving animals feelings, they HAVE feelings, they're SENTIENT (and don't try to start a semantic debate saying "sentience isn't self-awareness") - they can feel pain, they have their own natural desires and their value in life should not be measured by their economic utility to humans. What is so wrong with just leaving them alone and not commodifying them?


Benjamin Potts from Sea Shepherd:
I'm sick to death of living in a society which is so engrossed in the trivial and obsessed with the individual, that in its quest for unlimited wealth and convenience is sacrificing the future of not only its own children but of all life on this planet. We are not separate from the natural world. We don't own the land, the animals, plants or other people. Life is not a commodity. When we murder, rape, poison and pillage our planet we do so to ourselves. Time is short for those facing extinction, and I implore you to stop what you are doing and act in the defense of the planet.

EDITED: "should NOT be measured by their economic utility to humans"
Lunatic Goofballs
17-01-2008, 05:53
It is an awesome name, but they are pirates.(Proof that Ninjas are better:) )

True. Ninjas would have just killed the whalers from the shadows. *nod*
Lunatic Goofballs
17-01-2008, 05:55
No, the food chain goes:

ninja clowns (type of clown) eats-> ninja pirates (type of pirate)-> pirate ninjas (type of ninja)->vikings->pirates->ninjas->modern pirates->internet pirates.

These guys are modern pirates. They are at the bottom of the modern pirate food chain, right where internet pirate and modern pirates overlap.

These hippy terrorists are just looking for publicity, like terrorists that fire from crowded civillian areas. Can't take out the missile launchers without a few dozen civillian casualties.

Fixed. :)
1010102
17-01-2008, 05:57
..last time I checked, it was the Australian territory of Antarctic waters... and even if it was international waters, whaling still wouldn't be justified.

I have never watched Bambi, nor am I completely sentimental. There is no justification for unnecessarily killing a sentient life and not taking his/her suffering into consideration. I'm not giving animals feelings, they HAVE feelings, they're SENTIENT (and don't try to start a semantic debate saying "sentience isn't self-awareness") - they can feel pain, they have their own natural desires and their value in life should not be measured by their economic utility to humans. What is so wrong with just leaving them alone and not commodifying them?


Benjamin Potts from Sea Shepherd:


EDITED: "should NOT be measured by their economic utility to humans"

Give me a single piece of evidence towards their sentience from a credible source.(not some bleeding heart "save the whales" group)
NERVUN
17-01-2008, 06:01
..last time I checked, it was the Australian territory of Antarctic waters... and even if it was international waters, whaling still wouldn't be justified.
Last time I checked, Australia's Antarctic claims were not being recognized.
1010102
17-01-2008, 06:14
Last time I checked, Australia's Antarctic claims were not being recognized.

They aren't. No ones claims are. there are no laws there other than that you can't legally claim it.
Librustralia
17-01-2008, 06:24
Give me a single piece of evidence towards their sentience from a credible source.(not some bleeding heart "save the whales" group)

Well for a start, whales have a central nervous system. They also scream when being killed.

Whales and dolphins can communicate with each other. Dolphins use sound to communicate with other dolphins, and to echololate when hunting. This adaptation is especially useful since light does travel well through water. Humpbacks 'sing' long complicated songs with repeating patterns. These songs last a few minutes to more than half an hour and can be heard up to 100 miles away.

These are all facts you can't deny. The lengths people go to to justify selfishness (not you, the whalers) amazes me. So what if whales aren't as intelligent as us? Would you torture mentally retarded or brain dead humans?
Neu Leonstein
17-01-2008, 07:09
I think they should write "Research" on the side of HMAS Anzac and send it doing some weapons testing.

There's some data you just can't get with dry runs, you know...
Indri
17-01-2008, 07:15
sea shepherds ≠ terrorists
"1986: Sea Shepherd attempts to stop Faroe Islands pilot whale harvest. Using rifles, Sea
Shepherd activists shoot at Faroe Islands police in an attempt to sink their rubber dinghies. The
vessel “Sea Shepherd” was ordered to leave Faroese territorial waters. The police report of 7
October 1986 states: “One of the rubber dinghies was attacked directly by a “Speed Line” line
rifle. The attack … endangered the lives of the police crewmembers ... and signal flares
containing phosphorous was thrown at the police. At a later stage the Sea Shepherd used “toads”
(rotating iron spikes, pointed and sharp at both ends) against the rubber dinghies … petrol was
poured over the side of the ship and signal flares were thrown from the “Sea Shepherd” in an
attempt to set the petrol on fire.”
-Institute of Cetacean Research

And according to Activist Cash and the Tico Times, Central America's foremost English-language newspaper, Costa Rica is investigating him for attempted murder after Costa Rican fishermen said he attacked them when he tried to force their boat into a Guatemalan port in April 2002. A judge ordered him to stay in Costa Rican territory. A defiant Watson instead fled the country.

When you try to set police on fire because they asked you to move your boat it makes you a dangerous criminal. It stops being a protest when you physically attack people and their stuff but then that's what got Watson kicked out of Greenpeace to begin with so it's not really a shock that he's kept it up all these years. He should be arrested for piracy and I'm not sure he should be released because he has spent time in jail before and it hasn't deterred him from his life of violent crime.
Vetalia
17-01-2008, 07:20
I have to admit, I'm pretty dodgy on killing whales; they are, after all, highly intelligent creatures capable of displaying many of the same abilities as humans. Now, if it were either absolutely necessary from an economic standpoint or necessary to ensure that whale communities remain healthy, I would support it, but otherwise I have a lot of reservations about commercial whaling.

Once you throw true intelligence in to the mix, things get a lot more complicated... I can't morally justify hurting a whale without a very, very good reason to do so.
Neu Leonstein
17-01-2008, 07:22
They aren't. No ones claims are. there are no laws there other than that you can't legally claim it.
There's international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Antarctic_Territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

But there is a recognition that this part belongs to Australia, even if can't exercise sovereignty over it. And since part of the treaty system covers the establishment of conservation areas, Australia's national laws play a significant part in these areas.
Straughn
17-01-2008, 07:24
I have to admit, I'm pretty dodgy on killing whales; they are, after all, highly intelligent creatures capable of displaying many of the same abilities as humans. Now, if it were either absolutely necessary from an economic standpoint or necessary to ensure that whale communities remain healthy, I would support it, but otherwise I have a lot of reservations about commercial whaling.

Once you throw true intelligence in to the mix, things get a lot more complicated... I can't morally justify hurting a whale without a very, very good reason to do so.
That's just it, it's not even remotely necessary from an "economic standpoint", even less than the super dredging they've been up to for the last couple decades that strongly helped result in 1/10th of the original fish quantities left in the Pacific.
The Black Forrest
17-01-2008, 07:25
I have to admit, I'm pretty dodgy on killing whales; they are, after all, highly intelligent creatures capable of displaying many of the same abilities as humans. Now, if it were either absolutely necessary from an economic standpoint or necessary to ensure that whale communities remain healthy, I would support it, but otherwise I have a lot of reservations about commercial whaling.

Once you throw true intelligence in to the mix, things get a lot more complicated... I can't morally justify hurting a whale without a very, very good reason to do so.

I forget who mentioned it but in Japan the whaling people are lobbying to get whale meat added to school lunches again.

I wonder what the commercial value really is if they are not eating whale meat like they did in the past.....
Vetalia
17-01-2008, 07:41
That's just it, it's not even remotely necessary from an "economic standpoint", even less than the super dredging they've been up to for the last couple decades that strongly helped result in 1/10th of the original fish quantities left in the Pacific.

Exactly. Given the labor shortages in the Japanese economy and the large amount of resources available to ensure that whalers can be retrained for other fields, there is no economic reason to justify continued whaling. The environmental cost is no doubt far more significant than the small economic benefits that result from the practice.


I forget who mentioned it but in Japan the whaling people are lobbying to get whale meat added to school lunches again.

I wonder what the commercial value really is if they are not eating whale meat like they did in the past.....

Beats me. You know, if you have to lobby the government to create a market for your product, it's pretty damn irrelevant. They could make more money from a thriving marine ecosystem than they ever would from destroying said ecosystem for marginal economic gains.
NERVUN
17-01-2008, 07:53
There's international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Antarctic_Territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

But there is a recognition that this part belongs to Australia, even if can't exercise sovereignty over it. And since part of the treaty system covers the establishment of conservation areas, Australia's national laws play a significant part in these areas.
The US and Russia (Along with Japan) recognize no claims and the only ones that do recognize Australian claims are those nations who also make Antarctic territory claims.

Pretty much they are in international waters.
Free Soviets
17-01-2008, 07:54
a dangerous criminal.

≠ terrorist
NERVUN
17-01-2008, 07:55
I forget who mentioned it but in Japan the whaling people are lobbying to get whale meat added to school lunches again.
That was one prefecture, not the national government.

I wonder what the commercial value really is if they are not eating whale meat like they did in the past.....
Pretty bad, apparently they have warehouses of the stuff that's frozen as a lot of Japanese youth won't eat it, they like other fish or beef.
Vetalia
17-01-2008, 08:40
Activistcash is run by the misleading-named "Center for Consumer Freedom", a corporate lobby group started by Richard Berman for the tobacco, alchohol, meat and resturaunt industries. Richard Berman is also responsibly for the anti-union website "unionfacts.com".

That's interesting, and definitely a reason for skepticism, but can you should that it invalidates their statements? Being biased is one thing, but if these incidents are in fact true it isn't relevant that the person presenting them has significant biases against the subject.
Librustralia
17-01-2008, 08:40
And according to Activist Cash and the Tico Times, Central America's foremost English-language newspaper, Costa Rica is investigating him for attempted murder after Costa Rican fishermen said he attacked them when he tried to force their boat into a Guatemalan port in April 2002. A judge ordered him to stay in Costa Rican territory. A defiant Watson instead fled the country.


Activistcash is run by the misleading-named "Center for Consumer Freedom", a corporate lobby group started by Richard Berman for the tobacco, alchohol, meat and resturaunt industries. Richard Berman is also responsibly for the anti-union
website "unionfacts.com".


Organizations managed by Berman

* The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) The CCF criticizes groups who advocate regulating restaurants, meat, dairy, food processors, and alcohol. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Center for Science in the Public Interest, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been attacked by CCF.

* The American Beverage Institute (ABI) The ABI fights laws designed to regulate alcohol consumption, including the push to further lower existing blood-alcohol arrest thresholds.

* The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) The EPI is opposed to raising the minimum wage, particularly in the labor-intensive restaurant industry. It argues that increasing the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses would help drive the poor and uneducated out of the job market.

* The Center for Union Facts (CUF), an organization that on February 13, 2006, ran full-page ads in major print media outlets (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post) to blame trade unions for the bankruptcies of American industries. The CUF website includes the largest online database of labor-union reporting on salaries, budgets, and political spending. Recently, they have produced TV attack ads accusing trade unions of intimidation.
Indri
17-01-2008, 09:18
If there is one thing I cannot stand it's a moralist who tries to impose his personal beliefs on everyone through the government.

Activistcash is run by the misleading-named "Center for Consumer Freedom", a corporate lobby group started by Richard Berman for the tobacco, alchohol, meat and resturaunt industries. Richard Berman is also responsibly for the anti-union
website "unionfacts.com".
I am a member of the UFCW and I hate it. When I had to get that job to help pay my way through college one condition of my employment was joining the union even though I didn't want to. Because I'm only a part-time worker the only benefit I get from the union is a 15 minute break every 3 hours. And I usually skip it.

* The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) The CCF criticizes groups who advocate regulating restaurants, meat, dairy, food processors, and alcohol. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Center for Science in the Public Interest, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been attacked by CCF.
The CDC and UCS have exagerated threats before and should be called on it when they do. MADD is nothing more than a bunch of bitchy moralist crusaders. PETA has ocassionally funded terrorism and kills most of the animals they take in and promise to find homes for.

* The American Beverage Institute (ABI) The ABI fights laws designed to regulate alcohol consumption, including the push to further lower existing blood-alcohol arrest thresholds.
Mind telling me why it's your business what I or anyone else put in their body so long as we don't hurt you?

* The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) The EPI is opposed to raising the minimum wage, particularly in the labor-intensive restaurant industry. It argues that increasing the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses would help drive the poor and uneducated out of the job market.
Raising the min wage would force employers to raise prices to maintain profits. That would raise the cost of living for everyone and make it harder for the poor and uneducated to survive, let alone remain in the job market.

* The Center for Union Facts (CUF), an organization that on February 13, 2006, ran full-page ads in major print media outlets (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post) to blame trade unions for the bankruptcies of American industries. The CUF website includes the largest online database of labor-union reporting on salaries, budgets, and political spending. Recently, they have produced TV attack ads accusing trade unions of intimidation.
Simple fact, unions are populist, parasitic businesses and regularly engage in politics. They take more than their fair share from the pay checks of the people whose wages they negotiate and force industries to hire only union workers. They coerce and intimidate and they siphon. I'll shop at Wal Mart when I can just to piss the union heads off and to save hundreds a year.

If a Costa Rican judge did order Watson to stay in Costa Rican territory during the investigation into the accusation of attempted murder and he fled then it would make him a fugitive. That he has a history of this sort of thing and has in the past surrounded himself with arsonists and terrorists does not help his case.
Soleichunn
17-01-2008, 13:25
Pretty bad, apparently they have warehouses of the stuff that's frozen as a lot of Japanese youth won't eat it, they like other fish or beef.

Other fish? A whale is a mammal :p.
Intestinal fluids
17-01-2008, 15:48
Eco-terrorists:1
Whalers:2


Whales:0

The whales lose no matter what.
Andaluciae
17-01-2008, 15:51
sea shepherds ≠ terrorists

No, just cultural imperialists.
Pyschotika
17-01-2008, 16:08
Screw the Hippies?
Chumblywumbly
17-01-2008, 16:11
Wow, another thread filled with hyperbole, ranting and rhetoric.

Even if the ‘Sea Shepherds’ (which, btw, is a fucking stupid name for an environmental organisation) have used violence to get their point across, I don’t see how this excuses a state from allowing the hunting of an endangered species for no practical or scientific reasons whatsoever.

1010102’s apparent disgust at the concept that non-human animals could be anything more than instinct-machines rather amuses me, especially when we’re discussing intelligent mammals.

So, once again, why would anyone support the Japanese whalers?
Ifreann
17-01-2008, 16:24
Not that I agree with what the Japanese are doing, but this Sea Shepherd group aren't going to achieve anything like this, except giving people a nice wide brush to tar environmentalists with. That and getting themselves hunted for piracy and terrorism. Good luck saving the whales when you're in jail of on the run from the law.
Fudk
17-01-2008, 17:20
I am a member of the UFCW and I hate it. When I had to get that job to help pay my way through college one condition of my employment was joining the union even though I didn't want to. Because I'm only a part-time worker the only benefit I get from the union is a 15 minute break every 3 hours. And I usually skip it.

Um, so wait, why does skipping a 15-minute break they gave you make you hate the UFCW?


The CDC and UCS have exagerated threats before and should be called on it when they do. MADD is nothing more than a bunch of bitchy moralist crusaders. PETA has ocassionally funded terrorism and kills most of the animals they take in and promise to find homes for.

The CDC has a whole lot more money and PHDs than almost any source you can cite. I'm inclined to trust them. MADD is the fucking mothers of people killed in drunk driving accidents, you selfish, retarded, ignorant prick. PETA kills.....animals??!?!?!?!??! WTf? You're nuts. Source.


Mind telling me why it's your business what I or anyone else put in their body so long as we don't hurt you?

Because if you're driving, and you're imparied, there is a very high likelyhood you can hurt me. Thats like saying "Mind telling me why I shouldn't be able to brandish and wave around a loaded gun in public?"


Raising the min wage would force employers to raise prices to maintain profits. That would raise the cost of living for everyone and make it harder for the poor and uneducated to survive, let alone remain in the job market.

It would give the poor and uneducated more money to survive, thereby allowing them to pay for whatever increase in living standards arise.


Simple fact, unions are populist, parasitic businesses and regularly engage in politics. They take more than their fair share from the pay checks of the people whose wages they negotiate and force industries to hire only union workers. They coerce and intimidate and they siphon. I'll shop at Wal Mart when I can just to piss the union heads off and to save hundreds a year.

Unions are the only thing protecting the little guy in buisness. While some have gone a bit far, without them life would be infinantley worse for most people.

If a Costa Rican judge did order Watson to stay in Costa Rican territory during the investigation into the accusation of attempted murder and he fled then it would make him a fugitive. That he has a history of this sort of thing and has in the past surrounded himself with arsonists and terrorists does not help his case.

Depends on your definition of "terrorist." Although technically he should have stayed. I'll give you this one.
Jello Biafra
17-01-2008, 18:17
Violence against whalers is unacceptable, but so is violence against whales.

If there is one thing I cannot stand it's a moralist who tries to impose his personal beliefs on everyone through the government.These environmentalists aren't trying to use the government. Do you prefer their tactic?

I am a member of the UFCW and I hate it. When I had to get that job to help pay my way through college one condition of my employment was joining the union even though I didn't want to. Because I'm only a part-time worker the only benefit I get from the union is a 15 minute break every 3 hours. And I usually skip it*cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_security)
Ifreann
17-01-2008, 18:26
MADD is the fucking mothers of people killed in drunk driving accidents, you <flame-snip>
This kind of thing will only get you banned.
Free Soviets
17-01-2008, 18:28
Violence against whalers is unacceptable, but so is violence against whales.

so which wins? if some are set on inflicting violence on whales, what are you going to do about it?
Free Soviets
17-01-2008, 18:31
No, just cultural imperialists.

only in so far as certain cultural practices are illegitimately and unnecessarily detrimental to morally relevant entities. which seems to be a pretty good reason to impose better norms on them.
Jello Biafra
17-01-2008, 18:43
so which wins? if some are set on inflicting violence on whales, what are you going to do about it?Well, I didn't say putting nets in the ship's propellors was unacceptable...
Free Soviets
17-01-2008, 18:56
Well, I didn't say putting nets in the ship's propellors was unacceptable...

ah, yes. i agree. where possible, negotiation is prefereable to sabotage, which is preferable to direct personal violence. and murdering whalers in their sleep ain't cool at all.

but what should we do in a situation where we see a whaler about to fire a harpoon at a whale? killing him doesn't intuitively seem like a good option - unless we are talking about a particularly valuable whale, perhaps one of the last around and absolutely necessary to maintain a viable population, and i don't have time to do anything other than shoot the whaler. but if i have the ability to forcibly prevent his firing, shouldn't i do so given that his intended action is unacceptable?
Tmutarakhan
17-01-2008, 19:07
I meant Emotional feelings. I am not denying they feel pain. He syas they are Innocent. Being Innocent or guilty means you have a choice about what you do. They do not act on choice, they act on instinct. BIG differnce.
I do not believe for an instant that there is any robotic or instinctual about whales' behaviors. Their intelligence is comparable to ours, and the whalers are no better than cannibals in my view.
UN Protectorates
17-01-2008, 19:50
WTF?! Eco Terrorists?! Are you crazy?

Why isn't the Australian Navy patrolling thier own waters, and escorting these whalers out? It shouldn't have to fall to Greenpeace and the Conservation societies, even though they are doing a Sterling job.
[NS]I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS
17-01-2008, 20:28
WTF?! Eco Terrorists?! Are you crazy?

Why isn't the Australian Navy patrolling thier own waters, and escorting these whalers out? It shouldn't have to fall to Greenpeace and the Conservation societies, even though they are doing a Sterling job.
Because it's not their own waters. It's international waters and while Australia does maintain a terretorial claim to a part of the Antarctic, all of those claims have been suspended under the Antarctic treaties.

As for the whole thing, I wouldn't have had any sympathy for the Sea Shepherd people if they faced charges for piracy in Japan. To be honest, I just think our Royal Navy should board them and seize their ships. As far as It would be legal as their ships are unregistered. They could probably be sold for a tidy sum as well, a little extra for the public purse.
UN Protectorates
17-01-2008, 20:38
I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13378727']Because it's not their own waters. It's international waters and while Australia does maintain a terretorial claim to a part of the Antarctic, all of those claims have been suspended under the Antarctic treaties.

As for the whole thing, I wouldn't have had any sympathy for the Sea Shepherd people if they faced charges for piracy in Japan. To be honest, I just think our Royal Navy should board them and seize their ships. As far as It would be legal as their ships are unregistered. They could probably be sold for a tidy sum as well, a little extra for the public purse.

Actually, no. The area the Whalers where in is actually apart of Australia's Exclusive Economic zone, where they do have exclusive ownership of the waters.

As far as I'm concerned it ought to be the Whaler's whose ships should be interned, until the Japanese government can make assurances that this sort of incident doesn't occur again.
Ifreann
17-01-2008, 20:45
Actually, no. The area the Whalers where in is actually apart of Australia's Exclusive Economic zone, where they do have exclusive ownership of the waters.

As far as I'm concerned it ought to be the Whaler's whose ships should be interned, until the Japanese government can make assurances that this sort of incident doesn't occur again.

Apart from the fact that what the whalers are doing is(apparently) legal. Maybe not if they're doing it in Australian waters(I don't know if they are or not), but while what they're doing is certainly objectionable, it is legal. What Sea Shepherd are doing absolutely is not.
[NS]I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS
17-01-2008, 20:52
Actually, no. The area the Whalers where in is actually apart of Australia's Exclusive Economic zone, where they do have exclusive ownership of the waters.

As far as I'm concerned it ought to be the Whaler's whose ships should be interned, until the Japanese government can make assurances that this sort of incident doesn't occur again.
If the whalers did this then obviously Australia has every right to prevent it in their Exclusive Economic Zone. I haven't really heard anything either way, so a source for that would be welcome.
UN Protectorates
17-01-2008, 21:17
Apart from the fact that what the whalers are doing is(apparently) legal. Maybe not if they're doing it in Australian waters(I don't know if they are or not), but while what they're doing is certainly objectionable, it is legal. What Sea Shepherd are doing absolutely is not.

No, it is completely illegal. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) maintains that only Australia has any claims to any economic gains made in their EEZ. The whalers are effectively stealing what are Australian marine resources.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13378781']If the whalers did this then obviously Australia has every right to prevent it in their Exclusive Economic Zone. I haven't really heard anything either way, so a source for that would be welcome.

The Federal Court issued an injunction to the Japanese to stop thier activity in the EEZ, specifically the Australian Whale sanctuary, as it decided the Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha company is breaking Australian law.

http://abcscience.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/15/2138867.htm?section=justin
Ifreann
17-01-2008, 21:29
No, it is completely illegal. The Australian Exclusive Economic zone maintains that only Australia has any claims to any economic gains made in their EEZ. The whalers are effectively stealing what are Australian marine resources.

Well then it is illegal. My point was that the whaling bit is legal. Doing it in the territory of a sovereign nation is not, but if they returned to Japanese or international waters they would not be breaking any laws by hunting those whales.
UN Protectorates
17-01-2008, 21:32
Well then it is illegal. My point was that the whaling bit is legal. Doing it in the territory of a sovereign nation is not, but if they returned to Japanese or international waters they would not be breaking any laws by hunting those whales.

Which is exactly what the Australian Navy ought to be doing, escorting these Whalers out of the EEZ and whale sanctuary and into International waters. And if they refuse to turn back, they should be interned.

Instead, the Sea Shepards had to take it into thier own hands, and notified the Captain he was breaching Australian law by whaling in the EEZ. They got tied to a mast for it.
Tmutarakhan
17-01-2008, 21:49
Well then it is illegal. My point was that the whaling bit is legal. Doing it in the territory of a sovereign nation is not, but if they returned to Japanese or international waters they would not be breaking any laws by hunting those whales.
That is dubious, also. Their claims of "research" purposes appear fraudulent.
Ifreann
17-01-2008, 21:50
Which is exactly what the Australian Navy ought to be doing, escorting these Whalers out of the EEZ and whale sanctuary and into International waters. And if they refuse to turn back, they should be interned.

Instead, the Sea Shepards had to take it into thier own hands, and notified the Captain he was breaching Australian law by whaling in the EEZ. They got tied to a mast for it.

What right do the Sea Shepherds have to enforce Australian law? At best they're a vigilante mob.

Oh, and when they attacked the whaling fleet with acid and tried to sabotage their ships. Wasn't that before they got tied to the mast for informing one of the captains that he was breaching international law?
That is dubious, also. Their claims of "research" purposes appear fraudulent.

Source?
Tmutarakhan
17-01-2008, 22:01
What "research" have they ever published? On the other hand, they admit to seeking to profit from the slaughter.
Indri
17-01-2008, 22:04
Um, so wait, why does skipping a 15-minute break they gave you make you hate the UFCW?
I hate the UFCW because they make me pay the same dues as everyone else but I don't have access to any benefits. I hated that joining a union was a condition of my employment. I hated

The CDC has a whole lot more money and PHDs than almost any source you can cite.
And they're not infallible.

MADD is the fucking mothers of people killed in drunk driving accidents, you selfish, retarded, ignorant prick.
I'm going to ignore that

PETA kills.....animals??!?!?!?!??! WTf? You're nuts. Source.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA purchased a $9370 walk-in freezer for their headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia. Ask a freezer expert and he'll tell you that a walk-in freezer that expensive would be somewhere in the range of 10ft x 15ft. Why would they need a freezer this big? Is frozen trailmix that much of a delicacy? No, there are only 2 reasons to have a freezer like that, meat or cadavers. It was listed as a write-off on their July 31, 2002 tax filings, just 2 lines below the "Freeda the Fish Costume", which are open to the public because PETA is non-profit. PETA killed 1325 animals in 2002, the year of the freezer. They only took in 2103 so they killed about 2/3 of the animals they took in at their HQ in 2002. They kill animals and then attack people who kill animals.

"...sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever." - Ingrid Newkirk
"[Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS], we'd be against it." - Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President
PETA's Record of euthanization (http://www.peta-sucks.com/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf)

I'm not against killing animals but I am against anyone that tries to stop medical research and I dislike hypocrites.

Because if you're driving, and you're imparied, there is a very high likelyhood you can hurt me. Thats like saying "Mind telling me why I shouldn't be able to brandish and wave around a loaded gun in public?"
Who says I'm driving? I just said that I don't think it's anyone's business but my own unless I hurt someone. It's not like saying I should be able to wave around a loaded gun in public, it's like saying I should be able to own a loaded gun so long as I don't shoot up a mall or something.

It would give the poor and uneducated more money to survive, thereby allowing them to pay for whatever increase in living standards arise.
It's very simple, a'ight, when the cost of living goes up by the same or nearly the same amount as your pay increase you will only be able to prosper in the lag time between when the pay goes up and the prices are hiked. Then you're back at square one. If you tell a business that they can't raise their prices to compensate for the loss of higher min wages then the business might not turn a profit and fail. Then everyone is out of work and getting no money.

Unions are the only thing protecting the little guy in buisness. While some have gone a bit far, without them life would be infinantley worse for most people.
I am the little guy and I can say the UFCW has done nothing to make my life better. I'll admit there was a time, back before America was the 1st world nation it is now, that working conditions were dangerous and life was hard. That's generally not the case anymore. Unions have outlived their usefulness and the higher ups know it.

Depends on your definition of "terrorist." Although technically he should have stayed. I'll give you this one.
Terrorism, in the modern sense, is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
That seems like a nice definition and under it, what Rodney Coronado and Watson do is considered terrorism.

*cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_security)
I don't need collective bargaining to protect me, if I want to keep my job I'll make myself worth it. I didn't want to join the union, a faceless entity that siphons my pay, I had to or I wouldn't have been able to get the job that I needed to pay my way through college.

Now look, if you want to argue that killing whales is wrong, then fine. That's okay. Use your words, dude. The SSCS does not use their words, they use Waton's machine gun, firebombs, and mines to attack civilian ships in and out of port.
The Black Forrest
17-01-2008, 22:04
Well then it is illegal. My point was that the whaling bit is legal. Doing it in the territory of a sovereign nation is not, but if they returned to Japanese or international waters they would not be breaking any laws by hunting those whales.

Ahh but they don't want to do that as it's easier to prey on them at their feeding and spawning grounds.
Andaluciae
17-01-2008, 22:05
only in so far as certain cultural practices are illegitimately and unnecessarily detrimental to morally relevant entities. which seems to be a pretty good reason to impose better norms on them.

So, for example, when the Sea Shepherds went after the Makah, when the Makah attempted to undertake a traditional whaling expedition, something that would prove to not only provide a degree of rejuvenation to their tribe, but also a substantial source of food that is of a greater nutritional value than that which they are used to eating, they've got better norms than everyone else.

No, admittedly, these folks at hand aren't the Makah, but Sea Shepherds went after the Makah, and how SS treated the Makah is despicable, and they will not ever receive my support or pity.
The Black Forrest
17-01-2008, 22:07
Source?

Japan has claimed "research" whaling for years.

They also claim they found a new species called a pygmy blue whale.

Everybody else calls them Blue Whale Calfs......
Ifreann
17-01-2008, 22:08
What "research" have they ever published? On the other hand, they admit to seeking to profit from the slaughter.
I wouldn't know, I don't read many Japanese marine biology journals. Do you?
Ahh but they don't want to do that as it's easier to prey on them at their feeding and spawning grounds.
Makes sense, from their perspective.
Tmutarakhan
17-01-2008, 22:21
So, for example, when the Sea Shepherds went after the Makah, when the Makah attempted to undertake a traditional whaling expedition, something that would prove to not only provide a degree of rejuvenation to their tribe, but also a substantial source of food that is of a greater nutritional value than that which they are used to eating, they've got better norms than everyone else.

No, admittedly, these folks at hand aren't the Makah, but Sea Shepherds went after the Makah, and how SS treated the Makah is despicable, and they will not ever receive my support or pity.
Allowing the Jivaro to undertake a traditional man-hunting expedition might also give their tribal solidarity a boost, as well as a substantial source of food. I do not consider whaling to be very far removed from cannibalism.
The Black Forrest
17-01-2008, 22:27
I wouldn't know, I don't read many Japanese marine biology journals. Do you?

Makes sense, from their perspective.

Does it? Taking calfs or killing the mother before the calf is weened suggests they don't care about preserving their supply. Never mind the fact they have warehouses full of meat already.....
Ifreann
17-01-2008, 22:39
Does it? Taking calfs or killing the mother before the calf is weened suggests they don't care about preserving their supply. Never mind the fact they have warehouses full of meat already.....

Well they want whale and they want it nao. Where better to find whales than where they feed and give birth?
1010102
17-01-2008, 23:19
Well for a start, whales have a central nervous system. They also scream when being killed.

They feel pain. Good for them. So do all animals. Ever acidently stepped on a pet's foot? it screams? People also say that rabits scream when killed. Do they get special protection? No. Screaming in pain does not equal sentience.

Whales and dolphins can communicate with each other.

So do Birds, wolves, cats, dogs, and any animal that lives in a pack.

Dolphins use sound to communicate with other dolphins, and to echololate when hunting.

Bats ecolocate too. Doesn't mean jack.

This adaptation is especially useful since light does travel well through water.

I'll assume you mean doesn't. Yes, and birds developed wings, doesn't mean their Sentient.

Humpbacks 'sing' long complicated songs with repeating patterns. These songs last a few minutes to more than half an hour and can be heard up to 100 miles away.

So can Birds. You've never heard a loon sing at sunrise have you? They sing with repeating patterns. Their song is very amazing, you should listen sometime.

These are all facts you can't deny

I think I have.

The lengths people go to to justify selfishness (not you, the whalers) amazes me. So what if whales aren't as intelligent as us? Would you torture mentally retarded or brain dead humans?

No I wouldn't. With out their illness, they would have been as intelligent as they should be. Whales, are all born that way. I'm not denying their smarter than most animals, but they are not sentient.
Tmutarakhan
17-01-2008, 23:27
You need to give some definition of "sentient" or we'll just argue in circles.
Visceral reactions are not really subject to argument anyway. I am viscerally repulsed by eating dogs and cats (as some in east Asia do), but not to the same extent as eating primates (as some in Africa do) or cetaceans: it is too close to eating humans. Eating cows doesn't upset me, I know some get upset by it but *shrug*
I would, of course, be opposed to (indeed repulsed by) the idea of killing and eating the whalers, but not much more so than I am by what they do.
Isidoor
17-01-2008, 23:36
They feel pain. Good for them. So do all animals. Ever acidently stepped on a pet's foot? it screams? People also say that rabits scream when killed. Do they get special protection? No. Screaming in pain does not equal sentience.

actually sentience is defined as the ability to sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient), and has nothing to do with sapience, which is what you probably mean.
Anyway, I see no reason to inflict pain if it can otherwise be prevented, or if the pain inflicted isn't in some way compensated by some other good.
The Black Forrest
17-01-2008, 23:49
I'm not denying their smarter than most animals, but they are not sentient.

Ok before you can claim victory you will have to give your definition of sentient.....unless you are speaking of self-awareness rather then sensing?
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 00:32
Which is exactly what the Australian Navy ought to be doing, escorting these Whalers out of the EEZ and whale sanctuary and into International waters. And if they refuse to turn back, they should be interned.
That's not Australia's EEZ as Australian claims to Antarctica are not recognized or disputed. They're in international waters.

Instead, the Sea Shepards had to take it into thier own hands, and notified the Captain he was breaching Australian law by whaling in the EEZ. They got tied to a mast for it.
Sea Shepard says that they were, however we don't have any proof of that whatsoever.
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 00:39
What "research" have they ever published? On the other hand, they admit to seeking to profit from the slaughter.
I present this without comment as the question got asked in Japan by its gaikokujin residents and answered:

Valuable data from whale research

By DAN GOODMAN
Councilor, Institute of Cetacean ResearchTokyo

In his Jan. 3 letter, "Where is the whale research?," Darryl Magree asks who evaluates the study designs and methods, and how many articles are published in respected scientific journals, as a result of Japan's research whaling. Study design and methods are reviewed annually by the International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee.

At its December 2006 workshop to review data and results from Japan's research whaling in the Antarctic, the committee noted that "The program has also resulted in a number of publications in the IWC journals and in other international peer-reviewed journals. Except for cruise reports and commentaries, there have been 22 articles in the Annual Reports of the International Whaling Commission and the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, and 58 articles in (other) English-language journals. Of the latter, the majority is in the fields of physiology, reproduction and chemistry, while six articles are concerned with management.

"In addition, a total of 182 scientific documents based on Antarctic whale research data have been presented to the Scientific Committee meetings." Some of the 182 documents presented to the Scientific Committee were prepared by Australian and American scientists who requested data collected by the lethal component of Japan's research.

One of the conclusions of the report of the December 2006 workshop, which can be found on the International Whaling Commission's Web site, is that "the data set provides a valuable resource to allow investigation of some aspects of the role of whales within the marine ecosystem.

"With appropriate analyses, this has the potential to make an important contribution to the Scientific Committee's work in this regard, as well as the work of other relevant bodies such as CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources)."
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20080113a6.html
UN Protectorates
18-01-2008, 00:57
That's not Australia's EEZ as Australian claims to Antarctica are not recognized or disputed. They're in international waters.

The Australian Federal Court seems to think differently.
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 01:05
The Australian Federal Court seems to think differently.
Bully for the Australian Federal Court. Japan says it owns Takeshima (Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks) but its claim is not recognized either.
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 01:12
I present this without comment as the question got asked in Japan by its gaikokujin residents and answered:


http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20080113a6.html
OK, thanks for the info. I cannot really evaluate *assertions* that the research may be valuable, without any examples given of what this research consists of, and probably couldn't evaluate the research even if some of it was presented, since I am not a professional in the field. I do know a couple marine biologists, who consider what the Japanese are doing to be horrible, and their "research" cover to be a sham, but I cannot say how typical that is of opinions among the professionals.
My own attitude is more based in emotion than reason: that is, even assuming it is profound research, I would class it with Mengele's research regardless.
The Black Forrest
18-01-2008, 01:18
I present this without comment as the question got asked in Japan by its gaikokujin residents and answered:


http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20080113a6.html

Interesting. I wish Japantimes had been more detailed and listed some of the papers and documents rather then simple numbers.

I went to the IWC site and found a document that listed a papers since 1969. Only found 17 that mentioned Antarctica in the title.

I wonder to the value of the research with the question of how much of the data needed lethal action to obtain it?
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 01:25
OK, thanks for the info. I cannot really evaluate *assertions* that the research may be valuable, without any examples given of what this research consists of, and probably couldn't evaluate the research even if some of it was presented, since I am not a professional in the field. I do know a couple marine biologists, who consider what the Japanese are doing to be horrible, and their "research" cover to be a sham, but I cannot say how typical that is of opinions among the professionals.
My own attitude is more based in emotion than reason: that is, even assuming it is profound research, I would class it with Mengele's research regardless.
No idea myself. I cannot comment on the value of the research and a lot of that letter makes me think that the author was fudging things a bit (a number of those journals are internal journals).

Interesting. I wish Japantimes had been more detailed and listed some of the papers and documents rather then simple numbers.
Well, it was a letter to the editor... :p

I wonder to the value of the research with the question of how much of the data needed lethal action to obtain it?
Very good question and one that is being argued about, a lot.

In case anyone misunderstands my POV, I strongly condemn Japan for whaling and absolutely refuse to buy any products in Japan that contains whale (Something my wife is a little upset about, but says she'll abide by). But having said that, I dislike Sea Sheppard's methods and living in Japan means I get to see the other side of the issue up close and personal.
Sonnveld
18-01-2008, 01:26
The Sea Shepherd Society gives pirates a bad name. They're more than terrorists, they're hypocrites.

A Sea Shepherd Society vessel attacked a fishing trawler, ramming it and spraying the deck with gunfire. They seized the trawler's nets and the crew were busy picking squid out of them on deck.

Captain Watson comes up, tells them to stop, has his *personal chef* pick a few out and off to the kitchen to cook them up.

The kids who crew the ships — and they are kids, average age is 21 — often pay ten C-notes for the privilege of joining the expeditions.

I have to wonder what Steve Irwin would think of these hooligans' attitudes and tactics? He struck me as a man opposed to violence of any sort.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 01:35
But having said that, I dislike Sea Sheppard's methods and living in Japan means I get to see the other side of the issue up close and personal.
I'm not sure what you mean here by "the other side of the issue": you know whalers personally, although you won't have anything to do with them?
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 01:40
Allowing the Jivaro to undertake a traditional man-hunting expedition might also give their tribal solidarity a boost, as well as a substantial source of food. I do not consider whaling to be very far removed from cannibalism.

Are you volunteering to be one of the huntees?
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 01:42
I'm not sure what you mean here by "the other side of the issue": you know whalers personally, although you won't have anything to do with them?
Meaning that while the rest of the world gets news stories about how the mean Japanese are out conducting whaling in defiance of the international ban on it, I get stories about how Japan is trying to protect its cultural tradition of whale eating in the face of international pressure by mean Western countries.

I also get to see things like whale in my local supermarket for sale.
The Black Forrest
18-01-2008, 01:49
In case anyone misunderstands my POV, I strongly condemn Japan for whaling and absolutely refuse to buy any products in Japan that contains whale (Something my wife is a little upset about, but says she'll abide by). But having said that, I dislike Sea Sheppard's methods and living in Japan means I get to see the other side of the issue up close and personal.

Oh I know you weren't defending it. It was a valid post as I myself would have argued the "where is the research?"

Products? What do they use over there that still has whale in it?
JuNii
18-01-2008, 01:54
I present this without comment as the question got asked in Japan by its gaikokujin residents and answered:


http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20080113a6.html

It would be nice to get links to these publications or even article titles.
I am interested in what they found.
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 01:57
Oh I know you weren't defending it. It was a valid post as I myself would have argued the "where is the research?"
Er, sorry, BF, that wasn't directed at you personally, I just realized that looking back at my posts in the thread, I sound like I might be supporting Japan on this and I wanted to clarify.

Products? What do they use over there that still has whale in it?
Pet foods, some cosmetics, but mainly going to the seafood section of Tsuruya and finding fresh cuts of whale meat.

And while Nagano hasn't gotten it into school lunches (Given that Nagano is land locked and its diet has been... uh... far more interesting than whales) I have stated that if it's ever served to me for lunch I won't eat it.
JuNii
18-01-2008, 01:57
Well, it was a letter to the editor... :p


kinda makes sense with the
The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.
:p
Talopoli
18-01-2008, 02:01
Because, you know, throwing acid and entangling propellers isn't terrorism, right?

That's just like saying the people who burn down car factories to "save the environment" aren't terrorists. Or the people who kill scientists doing research on animals aren't terrorists. Because they're just doing it for the animals, right?!

Morally right or wrong, the Japanese fleet had a legal right to be where they were doing what they were doing. Re-writing international law is the best solution.

Attacking ships at sea, throwing deadly substances at them, attempting to destroy the ship's parts, etc. isn't the solution. It is, in fact, terrorism.

So yes, these people are terrorists.

/thread
JuNii
18-01-2008, 02:01
Considering his wife is pretty tough(have to be to live with somebody like Steve :D ) if she starts yelling at them then you have your answer.
Considering that She's from New York City... :p
Aardweasels
18-01-2008, 02:02
sea shepherds ≠ terrorists

Because, you know, throwing acid and entangling propellers isn't terrorism, right?

That's just like saying the people who burn down car factories to "save the environment" aren't terrorists. Or the people who kill scientists doing research on animals aren't terrorists. Because they're just doing it for the animals, right?!

Morally right or wrong, the Japanese fleet had a legal right to be where they were doing what they were doing. Re-writing international law is the best solution.

Attacking ships at sea, throwing deadly substances at them, attempting to destroy the ship's parts, etc. isn't the solution. It is, in fact, terrorism.

So yes, these people are terrorists.
The Black Forrest
18-01-2008, 02:02
The Sea Shepherd Society gives pirates a bad name. They're more than terrorists, they're hypocrites.

A Sea Shepherd Society vessel attacked a fishing trawler, ramming it and spraying the deck with gunfire.


Gunfire? I am going to need proof for that?

They seized the trawler's nets and the crew were busy picking squid out of them on deck.

Captain Watson comes up, tells them to stop, has his *personal chef* pick a few out and off to the kitchen to cook them up.

For this too.

The kids who crew the ships — and they are kids, average age is 21 — often pay ten C-notes for the privilege of joining the expeditions.

Meh. It takes money to do things.

I was going to go do some work with Goodall's people(fell through at the last moment). I would have had to pay for some of it.

I have to wonder what Steve Irwin would think of these hooligans' attitudes and tactics? He struck me as a man opposed to violence of any sort.


Considering his wife is pretty tough(have to be to live with somebody like Steve :D ) if she starts yelling at them then you have your answer.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm

That's a funny site!
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 02:03
It would be nice to get links to these publications or even article titles.
I am interested in what they found.
Here's a link to the org http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm they would probably have more information there. Their site is running REALLY slow right now though and I don't have the time to wait for it.
The Black Forrest
18-01-2008, 02:05
So yes, these people are terrorists.

So Sea Shepherds = Al Q or the Taliban?
Aardweasels
18-01-2008, 02:14
So Sea Sheppards = Al Q or the Taliban?

Well, obviously...Al qaida are the only terrorists, right?

Okay, take a deep breath and concentrate. There are more instances of terrorism in the world than what Al Qaida and the Taliban come up with. They are not the sole source and singular entity of terrorism that exists.

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to force or coerce. Seems to me throwing acid and destroying ships falls under this category. You'll notice, if you look hard, nowhere in that definition does it say Al Qaida or Taliban.
JuNii
18-01-2008, 02:15
Here's a link to the org http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm they would probably have more information there. Their site is running REALLY slow right now though and I don't have the time to wait for it.

thanks.

after brief perusal of files... got alot of questions. but will withhold them until detailed research of site. :p

(Btw... not saying you are defending them. just a general announcement to all readers.)
The Black Forrest
18-01-2008, 02:24
Here's a link to the org http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm they would probably have more information there. Their site is running REALLY slow right now though and I don't have the time to wait for it.

Good link!

Now I am finding papers in the big list!

But some of the titles begs the question of the need for hunting.

Oh well!

Thanks for the info as I have to change some of my arguments now! ;)
JuNii
18-01-2008, 02:27
Good link!

Now I am finding papers in the big list!

But some of the titles begs the question of the need for hunting.

Oh well!

Thanks for the info as I have to change some of my arguments now! ;)

Some of the Content begs the question of the need for hunting!

unless they are really stretching the definition of "biological sampling" :eek:

Edit: (photo section) I see... they kill the whale, then they take measurements, samples and notes and even check the stomach content.
The Black Forrest
18-01-2008, 02:28
Well, obviously...Al qaida are the only terrorists, right?

Okay, take a deep breath and concentrate. There are more instances of terrorism in the world than what Al Qaida and the Taliban come up with. They are not the sole source and singular entity of terrorism that exists.

:D you think you are angering me? :D :D :D :D

Terrorist is an over used label. Anything that people don't like they bring up terrorist as it brings up the image of the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban.

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to force or coerce. Seems to me throwing acid and destroying ships falls under this category. You'll notice, if you look hard, nowhere in that definition does it say Al Qaida or Taliban.

Sounds like you just described vandalism. I guess we can label many teenagers terrorists?

Oh and where is the proof for your claims of gunfire and the net story.
Aardweasels
18-01-2008, 02:30
Terrorist is an over done label. Anything that people don't like they bring up terrorist as it brings up the image of the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban.

And yet, the label still fits, even if it has been overdone. Automatically equating terrorism with the Taliban or Al Qaida only shows ignorance and an overdone tendency to lean on whatever is spouted by the mass media.

Sounds like you just described vandalism. I guess we can label many teenagers terrorists?

The last time I checked, most teenage vandalism doesn't use either threats or violence to force or coerce. That's not to say teenagers can't be terrorists, but most teenage vandalism has another source entirely.
The Black Forrest
18-01-2008, 02:41
And yet, the label still fits, even if it has been overdone. Automatically equating terrorism with the Taliban or Al Qaida only shows ignorance and an overdone tendency to lean on whatever is spouted by the mass media.


When they start killing people; then you will have something.

The last time I checked, most teenage vandalism doesn't use either threats or violence to force or coerce. That's not to say teenagers can't be terrorists, but most teenage vandalism has another source entirely.

Teenagers never use threats or violence or intimidation?

Still waiting for your proof of gunfire and the nets.....
Aardweasels
18-01-2008, 02:49
When they start killing people; then you will have something.

When they start killing people, then they will be murderers. Terrorism does not necessarily equal murder. The two can, and often are, mutually exclusive.

Teenagers never use threats or violence or intimidation?

Be patient as I repeat myself: The last time I checked, most teenage vandalism doesn't use either threats or violence to force or coerce. That's not to say teenagers can't be terrorists, but most teenage vandalism has another source entirely.


Still waiting for your proof of gunfire and the nets.....


The ships are fitted with water cannons, a concrete-filled bow made for ramming, and an attachment dubbed the “can opener” that can tear open a boat’s hull. In his book Earth Warrior, David Morris writes that Watson wears a long bowie knife at his side and carries AK-47s on board. He blasts Richard Wagner’s rousing “Ride of the Valkyries” to herald his arrival and terrify his victims.

SSCS’s mission is to stop fishing of which it disapproves. Its preferred methods? Ramming and sinking fishing ships, throwing butyric acid on their decks, and firing machine guns. Watson argues that United Nations resolutions authorize him to commit violent acts. But he regularly interferes with fisherman and hunters who are committing no crime. He serves as judge, jury, and executioner -- while enjoying the same tax-exempt status as universities and churches.

http://www.anno70.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=378&Itemid=1
Sel Appa
18-01-2008, 03:04
Japan should be sanctioned for such despicable acts. In international waters, the Sea Shepherds have every right to declare jurisdiction.
The Black Forrest
18-01-2008, 03:09
When they start killing people, then they will be murderers. Terrorism does not necessarily equal murder. The two can, and often are, mutually exclusive.


Eh? So the suicide bombings and kidnap murders in Iraq and Afghanistan are not terrorism?




http://www.anno70.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=378&Itemid=1

I recognize that one of the ships they rammed. That was a poacher. He was whaling during a moratorium.

So where were they spraying the ship with gunfire?
Librustralia
18-01-2008, 03:30
No, just cultural imperialists.

Cultural relativism can not be used to justify exploitative behavior. Would you try to justify forced female genital mutilation or slavery with the "oh, it's their culture" argument?

Over the years I have come to ignore people who use the label "terrorist" to dismiss environmental activists because we live in a society where apparently destroying the environment, making species go extinct and polluting the planet is perfectly fine (in the name of commerce) yet doing something to stop that is "terrorism".

Terrorist is a loaded word used by the state and became popular during the Reagan administration. It's used in the same way the word "communist" was used in the McCarthy era - to silence dissent. Today, you'd be labeled a "terrorist sympathizer" if you say you're against the war or for social justice or anything that the state disapproves of. When people use the word "terrorist", you'd be sure you won't get a real debate, but a semantic one.

It's funny how people who engage in direct action to stop whaling are labelled "terrorists" yet the people who kill those whales for profit are not. Terrorism swings both ways.

According to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a real-life example of this chilling McCarthyist tactic, Anyone engaging in non-violent civil disobedience causing at least $10,000 profit loss, will be considered a terrorist. If this were law at the turn of the 20th century, the suffragettes, notably Susan B. Anthony, as well as, civil rights leaders including Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi, may have been labelled terrorists.


That's just like saying the people who burn down car factories to "save the environment" aren't terrorists. Or the people who kill scientists doing research on animals aren't terrorists. Because they're just doing it for the animals, right?!


I am an animal-rights activist but I don't condone the ALF. I'm just curious though... when has the ALF acctually killed a scientist?



Sonnveld, have you acctually met any Sea Shepherd crew members before you made those generalizations? And as I mentioned before, ActivistCash is a run by a corporate lobby group.

To the person who said he hated Unions, well that's your opinion but unions have fought and won some major improvements for workers including the 8 hour working day.
Jello Biafra
18-01-2008, 03:50
ah, yes. i agree. where possible, negotiation is prefereable to sabotage, which is preferable to direct personal violence. and murdering whalers in their sleep ain't cool at all.

but what should we do in a situation where we see a whaler about to fire a harpoon at a whale? killing him doesn't intuitively seem like a good option - unless we are talking about a particularly valuable whale, perhaps one of the last around and absolutely necessary to maintain a viable population, and i don't have time to do anything other than shoot the whaler. but if i have the ability to forcibly prevent his firing, shouldn't i do so given that his intended action is unacceptable?Hm, good question.
On one hand, we have a human and a nonhuman.
On the other, the human is a poacher.
I'm not certain.
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 03:51
Eh? So the suicide bombings and kidnap murders in Iraq and Afghanistan are not terrorism?
Learn2reading comprehension.
'Can and often are mutually exclusive' != [whatever phrase you read that implies that they always are mutually exclusive]





I recognize that one of the ships they rammed. That was a poacher. He was whaling during a moratorium.

So where were they spraying the ship with gunfire?

So what if it was a poacher whaling during a moratorium? Sea Shepherd aren't some international police force. They have no right to use violence in an effort to enforce laws against whaling.
Cultural relativism can not be used to justify exploitative behavior. Would you try to justify forced female genital mutilation or slavery with the "oh, it's their culture" argument?

Over the years I have come to ignore people who use the label "terrorist" to dismiss environmental activists because we live in a society where apparently destroying the environment, making species go extinct and polluting the planet is perfectly fine (in the name of commerce) yet doing something to stop that is "terrorism".

Terrorist is a loaded word used by the state and became popular during the Reagan administration. It's used in the same way the word "communist" was used in the McCarthy era - to silence dissent. Today, you'd be labeled a "terrorist sympathizer" if you say you're against the war or for social justice or anything that the state disapproves of. When people use the word "terrorist", you'd be sure you won't get a real debate, but a semantic one.
I like how you criticise people for not engaging in real debate, but at the same time dismiss out of hand anyone who uses the word terrorist. The word, as I understand it, fits rather well to the actions of Sea Shepherd. They attacked the whaling fleet to try to scare them away. Do you have a better word for that other than terrorism? Piracy perhaps?

It's funny how people who engage in direct action to stop whaling are labelled "terrorists" yet the people who kill those whales for profit are not. Terrorism swings both ways.
Yes it does. What about killing whales involves the use of terror and/or violence for political gain? I think you're doing the same thing that you're criticising other of; purposefully misusing the word 'terrorism' in order to make negative implications.

According to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a real-life example of this chilling McCarthyist tactic, Anyone engaging in non-violent civil disobedience causing at least $10,000 profit loss, will be considered a terrorist. If this were law at the turn of the 20th century, the suffragettes, notably Susan B. Anthony, as well as, civil rights leaders including Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi, may have been labelled terrorists.
Source.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 04:38
Because, you know, throwing acid and entangling propellers isn't terrorism, right?

yeah, pretty much.

That's just like saying the people who burn down car factories to "save the environment" aren't terrorists.

and they aren't

Or the people who kill scientists doing research on animals aren't terrorists.

they might be - it depends on what the purpose of the killing is.

Because they're just doing it for the animals, right?!

utterly irrelevant to the determination of whether something is terrorism or not.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 04:46
When they start killing people; then you will have something.

So let me get this straight. Use of illicit force and destruction to coerce behavior is not an act of terrorism so long as no human casualties are produced yes?

So that makes ALF, which do regularly firebomb places they are opposed to, not a terrorist organization, despite being labeled as such by the FBI yes?

So if I were to make your personal effects explode at random times, in a way that produces injuries, much property destruction, but no fatalities, I would not be a terrorist yes?
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 04:46
The word, as I understand it, fits rather well to the actions of Sea Shepherd. They attacked the whaling fleet to try to scare them away. Do you have a better word for that other than terrorism?

'direct action' fits.

the point of the attack was to stop those attacked. one of the key components that distinguishes terrorism is that the attacks are purposefully aimed at people and things other than that which the terrorists want to influence. terrorists don't want anything from the people on the bus they blow up, they want something from those people's government.
Porphyry
18-01-2008, 04:47
I cannot honestly believe that there are people defending these ecological criminals who defy treaty after treaty to slaughter endangered sentient beings for nothing more than petty national pride.

I am also shocked to learn that my country is opposed to the actions of the Sea Shepherd organisation. I would dearly like to see the Nishin Maru blown sky high by international torpedoes. There is no justification for the actions of its crew and commanders in murdering whales. There is nothing to suggest whales arent every bit as sensitive and sentient as we are and the Japanese kill them for no more reason than an opportunity for a bit of petty flag-waving.

If the Nishin Maru went down with all hands tomorrow, the world would be a better place for it.

Jay
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 04:49
Japan should be sanctioned for such despicable acts. In international waters, the Sea Shepherds have every right to declare jurisdiction.

The Sea Shephards have no more jurisdiction in international than a group of pirates with weapons.

If you want to claim jurisdiction on such a flimsy basis, then you have no argument against random groups of seagoing people from claiming jurisdiction in carrying out trial, jury and execution against the Sea Shepherds in international waters.

Your claim would legitimize pirates.
Bann-ed
18-01-2008, 04:51
Your claim would legitimize pirates.

And then we would have to legitimize ninjas as well. :eek:

The human race would be wiped out within a fortnight, except for one lone ninja.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 04:54
'direct action' fits.

the point of the attack was to stop those attacked. one of the key components that distinguishes terrorism is that the attacks are purposefully aimed at people and things other than that which the terrorists want to influence. terrorists don't want anything from the people on the bus they blow up, they want something from those people's government.

Government alone may not be the sole factor here I believe. What difference is there if the demands are made of a private organization and not a government?

Let's say someone grabs a busload of employees from Intel, and demands that unless so and so is carried out, the employees will be killed. How is that different from someone grabbing a busload of employees from Intel who happen to be citizens of a government, and making demands of the government?
Porphyry
18-01-2008, 04:55
So what if it was a poacher whaling during a moratorium? Sea Shepherd aren't some international police force. They have no right to use violence in an effort to enforce laws against whaling.

I cant see many people shouting about how police forces should be allowed to use unnecessary violence


how you criticise people for not engaging in real debate, but at the same time dismiss out of hand anyone who uses the word terrorist. The word, as I understand it, fits rather well to the actions of Sea Shepherd. They attacked the whaling fleet to try to scare them away. Do you have a better word for that other than terrorism? Piracy perhaps?[quote]

Because its a silly word. It has lost all meaning. Trying to scare someone away isnt necessarily terrorism.

[quote]Yes it does. What about killing whales involves the use of terror and/or violence for political gain?

Well, i'm pretty sure its fairly terrifying for the whale. It is unarguably violent. And internal Japanese sources have been quoted by the BBC as having said, off the record, that the whale hunt only continues because they fear environmentalists will go after the tuna fleets next. Whaling is ABSOLUTELY the use of terror/violence for political gain.

Jay
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 05:00
I cannot honestly believe that there are people defending these ecological criminals who defy treaty after treaty to slaughter endangered sentient beings for nothing more than petty national pride.

Japan is not defying international treaties. It can be argued that its program adds nothing to scientific knowledge of whales and it can be argued that while Japan is following the letter of the treaties, it neglects the spirit of them, but you cannot say that Japan is in violation of them. Japan has been very, very careful about that.
Porphyry
18-01-2008, 05:10
Japan is not defying international treaties. It can be argued that its program adds nothing to scientific knowledge of whales and it can be argued that while Japan is following the letter of the treaties, it neglects the spirit of them, but you cannot say that Japan is in violation of them. Japan has been very, very careful about that.

By careful, surely you mean cheeky? If Japan's whaling programme adds nothing to the scientific knowledge of whales, then you cannot possibly call its claim of "scientific research" a valid one. The meat ends up being served in old people's homes! It's purely an excercise in national pride and a deliberate target to distract people from the reality of the wholesale destruction of marine ecosystems caused by overfishing.

Jay
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 05:15
By careful, surely you mean cheeky? If Japan's whaling programme adds nothing to the scientific knowledge of whales, then you cannot possibly call its claim of "scientific research" a valid one. The meat ends up being served in old people's homes! It's purely an excercise in national pride and a deliberate target to distract people from the reality of the wholesale destruction of marine ecosystems caused by overfishing.

Jay
No, I mean carefully, or did you miss the "yes they have published in journals" bit posted above.

They are still within the treaty covering whaling though, unlike Norway.
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2008, 05:17
≠ terrorist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state.

By ramming whaling ships, attempting to entangle the props of whaling ships, and throwing bottles of acid at the ship and its crew, the Sea Shepherds are committing acts of violence against the Japanese ships and crews. Therefore, they are committing acts of piracy, according to the definition I pulled up from Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Terrorism, in the modern sense,[1] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

The Sea Shepherds are committing unlawful acts of violence for political or ideological goals. They are attempting to create fear in the crews of whaling ships, and they disregard the safety of civilians (the crews of the whaling ships). Therefore, they are terrorists, according to the definition I pulled up from Wiki.
Porphyry
18-01-2008, 05:53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state.

By ramming whaling ships, attempting to entangle the props of whaling ships, and throwing bottles of acid at the ship and its crew, the Sea Shepherds are committing acts of violence against the Japanese ships and crews. Therefore, they are committing acts of piracy, according to the definition I pulled up from Wiki.


Not violence. Intimidation perhaps, arguably detention if they had suceeded in preventing the ship from moving if they'd been sucessful in damaging the propellor, but it hardly fits the spirit of that description does it? Calling it piracy is just, well, a bit silly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Terrorism, in the modern sense,[1] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

The Sea Shepherds are committing unlawful acts of violence for political or ideological goals. They are attempting to create fear in the crews of whaling ships, and they disregard the safety of civilians (the crews of the whaling ships). Therefore, they are terrorists, according to the definition I pulled up from Wiki.

The Sea Shepherds have not committed any "violence" or acted to induce terror, and they definiely haven't disregarded the safety of any "non combatants."

The whalers however, are committing acts of violence, which are hideously destructive and against international law, in support of a political goal, ie. Japanese national pride and keep international attention away from the tuna fleets. Therefore they are terrorists, according to your definition.

Jay
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 06:58
Government alone may not be the sole factor here I believe. What difference is there if the demands are made of a private organization and not a government?

Let's say someone grabs a busload of employees from Intel, and demands that unless so and so is carried out, the employees will be killed. How is that different from someone grabbing a busload of employees from Intel who happen to be citizens of a government, and making demands of the government?

yeah, the government/bus passenger thing was just an example. the point i was attempting to get across is the using violence against third parties rather than directly against the real target is one of the distinguishing factors between terrorism and various regular special ops military strikes and what-not.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 07:07
The Sea Shepherds are committing unlawful acts of violence for political or ideological goals. They are attempting to create fear in the crews of whaling ships, and they disregard the safety of civilians (the crews of the whaling ships). Therefore, they are terrorists, according to the definition I pulled up from Wiki.

whalers are not non-combatants in the relevant sense, since they are the ones directly doing that which is to be stopped. the sea shepherds are not, for example, holding the families of whalers hostage, or threatening to blow up shopping malls, etc. it is targeted at the relevant parties. and no, they aren't attempting to create fear as a goal in itself. they are attempting to stop the whaling.

see, what puts the terror in terrorism is that the fear is purposefully caused in people (typically the public at large) by attacking other people with the intention of making other other people (the leaders of countries or institutions or organizations, etc) do something. otherwise pretty much every violent action would be terrorism. large swaths of war and policing, for example.
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2008, 09:13
Not violence. Intimidation perhaps, arguably detention if they had suceeded in preventing the ship from moving if they'd been sucessful in damaging the propellor, but it hardly fits the spirit of that description does it? Calling it piracy is just, well, a bit silly.



The Sea Shepherds have not committed any "violence" or acted to induce terror, and they definiely haven't disregarded the safety of any "non combatants."

The whalers however, are committing acts of violence, which are hideously destructive and against international law, in support of a political goal, ie. Japanese national pride and keep international attention away from the tuna fleets. Therefore they are terrorists, according to your definition.

Jay

In piracy, the violence can be against the ships, not just against the people on the ship. Ramming ships, throwing acid on them, and entangling their props with rope/line is violence.

And as to the claim that they don't disregard the safety of non-combatants/civilians, leaving a ship disabled (due to rope/line entangled around the prop/propshaft) or sinking (due to ramming) in waters that cold is unduly risking the lives of the crew of any ships they disable/sink. A person cannot survive more than a few minutes in water that cold without a dry suit.
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2008, 09:18
whalers are not non-combatants in the relevant sense, since they are the ones directly doing that which is to be stopped. the sea shepherds are not, for example, holding the families of whalers hostage, or threatening to blow up shopping malls, etc. it is targeted at the relevant parties. and no, they aren't attempting to create fear as a goal in itself. they are attempting to stop the whaling.

see, what puts the terror in terrorism is that the fear is purposefully caused in people (typically the public at large) by attacking other people with the intention of making other other people (the leaders of countries or institutions or organizations, etc) do something. otherwise pretty much every violent action would be terrorism. large swaths of war and policing, for example.

Whalers are civilians, though. And terrorism is violence with the intent to push your political or ideological goals on someone else. And I know if the ship I was on was rammed intentionally, or people started throwing bottles of acid at me/the ship, or people tried to intentionally disable the ship by getting rope/line entangled around the prop/propshaft, especially in the waters of the Antarctic, I'd be terrified.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 09:47
yeah, the government/bus passenger thing was just an example. the point i was attempting to get across is the using violence against third parties rather than directly against the real target is one of the distinguishing factors between terrorism and various regular special ops military strikes and what-not.

The parameters you have outlined above "military", indicate that at a certain level, the actions carried out are sanctioned by a governmental entity, and is thus culpable if discovered.

This however, is not a free pass to do whatever it likes, and it may be forced to surrender restitutions for its actions should criminal events be discovered.

Sea Shepherd is culpable to no one but itself. And as such, given its criminal acts of piracy should be treated as such.

Of course, you could try to excuse this. Then on the flip side, you must also excuse the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by the French intelligence services. And of course, if the entirety of the Sea Shepherd organization should be lost at sea after a deliberate attack, you would also have to excuse that.

Or will you argue that the goals justify the means, and that so long as one's goal is "right", a difficult thing to gauge as everyone has a different idea of what is right, any and every mean is justified, and excusable?
Novo Illidium
18-01-2008, 12:12
If the Japanese had refrained from illegally hunting whales in the first place, you wouldn't have these crazy eco-terrorists running about chucking acid and what-not.
NERVUN
18-01-2008, 12:34
If the Japanese had refrained from illegally hunting whales in the first place, you wouldn't have these crazy eco-terrorists running about chucking acid and what-not.
Sadly, however, Japan is not illegally hunting whales.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 13:31
Sadly, however, Japan is not illegally hunting whales.

But since when has reality anything to do with the more rabid activists anyway?
Novo Illidium
18-01-2008, 15:46
But since when has reality anything to do with the more rabid activists anyway?

If by that you meant I was a supporter of these "eco-terrorists" then no, I am not. I don't really believe that attempting to harm someone is a justifiable form of action against whaling; what I am saying however, is that if there hadn't been any whaling going on in the first place, be it illegal or not (which kind of depends whether or not you believe the Australian Federal Court's recent decision is valid), then you wouldn't have those blokes sailing about in the Sea Shepard anyway. So to sum it up, I don't support the eco-terrorists but then they wouldn't be about anyway if there wasn't any whaling going on in the first place.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 16:03
Or will you argue that the goals justify the means, and that so long as one's goal is "right", a difficult thing to gauge as everyone has a different idea of what is right, any and every mean is justified, and excusable?

we all already accept that means are justified in relation to what they are used for. otherwise self-defense would be assault and murder. but this also does not give free reign to do whatever will acomplish the goal. and, of course, the fact that people disagree does not demonstrate that anything goes. many people's idea of what is right is demonstrably incorrect. justification requires reason.
Dyakovo
18-01-2008, 16:04
So Sea Shepherds = Al Q or the Taliban?

You don't know who the Taliban are/were do you?
Dyakovo
18-01-2008, 16:11
'direct action' fits.

So does terrorism

Terrorism, in the modern sense,is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 16:17
Whalers are civilians, though.

irrelevant. so are political leaders, collaborationists, land-grabbing settlers, and others that are sometimes legitimate targets of coercion. what matters is whether those targeted are the ones actually doing the thing to be stopped (or even reasonably believed to be), or whether you are targeting people essentially indescriminately.

And terrorism is violence with the intent to push your political or ideological goals on someone else.

so is war. so is policing. etc.

And I know if the ship I was on was rammed intentionally, or people started throwing bottles of acid at me/the ship, or people tried to intentionally disable the ship by getting rope/line entangled around the prop/propshaft, especially in the waters of the Antarctic, I'd be terrified.

irrelevant
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 16:18
I cannot honestly believe that there are people defending these ecological criminals who defy treaty after treaty to slaughter endangered sentient beings for nothing more than petty national pride.
We're not defending the whalers, we're condemning the actions of Sea Shepherd.

I am also shocked to learn that my country is opposed to the actions of the Sea Shepherd organisation. I would dearly like to see the Nishin Maru blown sky high by international torpedoes. There is no justification for the actions of its crew and commanders in murdering whales. There is nothing to suggest whales arent every bit as sensitive and sentient as we are and the Japanese kill them for no more reason than an opportunity for a bit of petty flag-waving.
Unfortunately, what they are doing is perfectly legal. If you don't like it then how about you advocate changing the laws, instead of advocating murder.

If the Nishin Maru went down with all hands tomorrow, the world would be a better place for it.
How are you any better than them then? They have no regard for whale life, and you have no regard for human life.

I cant see many people shouting about how police forces should be allowed to use unnecessary violence
Of course they shouldn't. They can use necessary violence. Sea Shepherd have no right to use any violence to enforce anti-whaling laws or their own morality.


Because its a silly word. It has lost all meaning. Trying to scare someone away isnt necessarily terrorism.
Trying to terrify through use or threat of violence for political or idealogical gain is.



Well, i'm pretty sure its fairly terrifying for the whale.
Irrelevant to whether it is terrorism or not.
It is unarguably violent.
Irrelevant to whether it is terrorism or not.
And internal Japanese sources have been quoted by the BBC as having said, off the record, that the whale hunt only continues because they fear environmentalists will go after the tuna fleets next. Whaling is ABSOLUTELY the use of terror/violence for political gain.
Source.

Not violence. Intimidation perhaps, arguably detention if they had suceeded in preventing the ship from moving if they'd been sucessful in damaging the propellor, but it hardly fits the spirit of that description does it? Calling it piracy is just, well, a bit silly.
No, it fits. You might not like it, but that doesn't change anything.



The Sea Shepherds have not committed any "violence"
Yes, they have.
or acted to induce terror,
Yes, they have.
and they definiely haven't disregarded the safety of any "non combatants."
Yes, they have.

The whalers however, are committing acts of violence, which are hideously destructive
Yes.
and against international law
No.
, in support of a political goal, ie. Japanese national pride and keep international attention away from the tuna fleets. Therefore they are terrorists, according to your definition.
Where are you getting this information on their motivation from?
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 16:20
irrelevant. so are political leaders, collaborationists, land-grabbing settlers, and others that are sometimes legitimate targets of coercion. what matters is whether those targeted are the ones actually doing the thing to be stopped (or even reasonably believed to be), or whether you are targeting people essentially indescriminately.



so is war. so is policing. etc.



irrelevant

Alright, suppose that what Sea Shepherd are doing isn't terrorism. That doesn't mean it's right.
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2008, 16:33
irrelevant. so are political leaders, collaborationists, land-grabbing settlers, and others that are sometimes legitimate targets of coercion. what matters is whether those targeted are the ones actually doing the thing to be stopped (or even reasonably believed to be), or whether you are targeting people essentially indescriminately.



so is war. so is policing. etc.



irrelevant

Terrorism, in the modern sense,[1] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.



War and policing, if unlawful, can be considered terrorism. However, war and policing, if lawful, cannot be.



It isn't irrelevant. You said , "see, what puts the terror in terrorism is that the fear is purposefully caused in people (typically the public at large) by attacking other people with the intention of making other other people (the leaders of countries or institutions or organizations, etc) do something."

If what they're doing follows the definition of terrorism, and they're terrifying me, then what they're doing is terrorism.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 16:40
So does terrorism

no, it doesn't really fit that. the whalers are the 'combatants' in the relevant sense. in any case, you'd be better off clicking further through wiki to the definitions of terrorism page, and then noticing that there are like at least a million self-serving definitions that are basically unable to distinguish between distinct things. if terrorism means something, it means something that is different from standard military actions, from policing, from mob criminality, from assassination, from kidnapping, from sabotage on its own, etc. which is why we must use something more like the following:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought." (p. 28 of Political Terrorism by Schmid and Jongman, 1988)

(though i'm not sure about the semi-clandestine part, or the representative part, as they seem to rule out a few things that might be better kept in, as well as rule in some things that might be better kept out)
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 16:42
Alright, suppose that what Sea Shepherd are doing isn't terrorism. That doesn't mean it's right.

true, it does not follow from the fact that it ain't terrorism that its right. but it is a fact that it ain't terrorism. it also is a fact that it is right, but you are correct that that requires a separate argument.
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 16:46
true, it does not follow from the fact that it ain't terrorism that its right. but it is a fact that it ain't terrorism. it also is a fact that it is right, but you are correct that that requires a separate argument.

I'm sure you know that we'll need more than your word to accept it as a fact. I don't think it's right at all. I don't think that attacking the whaling fleet will achieve anything.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 16:48
Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

War and policing, if unlawful, can be considered terrorism. However, war and policing, if lawful, cannot be.

any definition that has a legal component is a failure as a definition. it is an irrelevant and useless distinction, except to provide self-serving cover to officially sanctioned state acts of terrorism. more generally, the legal status of an act is almost always utterly irrelevant to any serious discussion of the nature of the act.

It isn't irrelevant. You said , "see, what puts the terror in terrorism is that the fear is purposefully caused in people (typically the public at large) by attacking other people with the intention of making other other people (the leaders of countries or institutions or organizations, etc) do something."

If what they're doing follows the definition of terrorism, and they're terrifying me, then what they're doing is terrorism.

you do know what the words 'purposefully' and 'intention' mean, right?
Dyakovo
18-01-2008, 16:56
no, it doesn't really fit that.

This really just comes back to your general rule which seems to be: if FS approves of it, it's not terrorism.
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 16:58
Er, sorry, BF, that wasn't directed at you personally, I just realized that looking back at my posts in the thread, I sound like I might be supporting Japan on this and I wanted to clarify.


Pet foods, some cosmetics, but mainly going to the seafood section of Tsuruya and finding fresh cuts of whale meat.

And while Nagano hasn't gotten it into school lunches (Given that Nagano is land locked and its diet has been... uh... far more interesting than whales) I have stated that if it's ever served to me for lunch I won't eat it.
How much minced infant meat do you find in Tsuruya?
We have never had occasion to regret letting Germany rebuild, but Japan still has a deep strain of savagery, and it is past time that Japan learn it is not acceptable.
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2008, 17:09
any definition that has a legal component is a failure as a definition. it is an irrelevant and useless distinction, except to provide self-serving cover to officially sanctioned state acts of terrorism. more generally, the legal status of an act is almost always utterly irrelevant to any serious discussion of the nature of the act.



you do know what the words 'purposefully' and 'intention' mean, right?

:rolleyes:

It isn't an irrelevant or useless distinction. For example, killing somebody for a lawful reason (self defense) is different than killing somebody for an unlawful reason (murder).


I do know what they mean. The Sea Shepherds are purposefully attempting to make the whalers stop by creating terror with their acts, and their intention is to make the captains of the whaling vessels leave.
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 17:09
I do know what they mean. The Sea Shepherds are purposefully attempting to make the whalers stop by creating terror with their acts, and their intention is to make the captains of the whaling vessels leave.
Their intention is to defend the lives of the whales. If they were hunting humans, there would be no question that it was lawful for anyone, whether "police" or not, to kill the hunters to stop them. Whether that would be right in this case depends on the value you put on whales (personally I would think that *eating* the whalers would be going too far, but I would shed no tears if whalers were killed), but the actions here are far short of killing the whalers.
Dyakovo
18-01-2008, 17:16
If by that you meant I was a supporter of these "eco-terrorists" then no, I am not. I don't really believe that attempting to harm someone is a justifiable form of action against whaling; what I am saying however, is that if there hadn't been any whaling going on in the first place, be it illegal or not (which kind of depends whether or not you believe the Australian Federal Court's recent decision is valid), then you wouldn't have those blokes sailing about in the Sea Shepard anyway. So to sum it up, I don't support the eco-terrorists but then they wouldn't be about anyway if there wasn't any whaling going on in the first place.

Wow, a full paragraph to say absolutely nothing
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 17:17
we all already accept that means are justified in relation to what they are used for. otherwise self-defense would be assault and murder. but this also does not give free reign to do whatever will acomplish the goal. and, of course, the fact that people disagree does not demonstrate that anything goes. many people's idea of what is right is demonstrably incorrect. justification requires reason.

Good. Then would you agree that current justification attempts for the actions of Sea Shepherd by Sea Shepherd and its supporters are insufficient in regards to their demonstratively criminal acts?
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 17:18
If by that you meant I was a supporter of these "eco-terrorists" then no, I am not. I don't really believe that attempting to harm someone is a justifiable form of action against whaling; what I am saying however, is that if there hadn't been any whaling going on in the first place, be it illegal or not (which kind of depends whether or not you believe the Australian Federal Court's recent decision is valid), then you wouldn't have those blokes sailing about in the Sea Shepard anyway. So to sum it up, I don't support the eco-terrorists but then they wouldn't be about anyway if there wasn't any whaling going on in the first place.

And if people didn't have money, there wouldn't be any robbers hmm? Lovely bit of logic you have there. Violent crime is justifiable, so long as you don't like what that person is doing.

You may not support them, but you are justifying them.

Oh, and as NERVRUN pointed out, Japan isn't breaking any law as much as the activists try to claim otherwise. Sea Shepherd is the one breaking the law here.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 17:20
It isn't an irrelevant or useless distinction. For example, killing somebody for a lawful reason (self defense) is different than killing somebody for an unlawful reason (murder).

and if, for example, somebody comes to power and makes a law saying that it is now lawful to round up members of minority group x and hack them to death with machetes?

lawful don't mean shit. never has, never will.

I do know what they mean. The Sea Shepherds are purposefully attempting to make the whalers stop by creating terror with their acts, and their intention is to make the captains of the whaling vessels leave.

oh, ok, so you don't know what 'other' means then.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 17:22
This really just comes back to your general rule which seems to be: if FS approves of it, it's not terrorism.

there are lots of things i don't approve of that aren't terrorism.
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 17:23
Oh, and as NERVRUN pointed out, Japan isn't breaking any law as much as the activists try to claim otherwise.
NERVRUN has pointed to Japanese *assertions* that they are not breaking the law, and what the Japanese cite in support of that argument. It is matter of great controversy whether they are or are not breaking the law, and the only judicial decision on the subject has gone against the Japanese. However, the Japanese actions remain very vile, whether the law is able to catch up to them or not.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 17:27
Their intention is to defend the lives of the whales. If they were hunting humans, there would be no question that it was lawful for anyone, whether "police" or not, to kill the hunters to stop them. Whether that would be right in this case depends on the value you put on whales (personally I would think that *eating* the whalers would be going too far, but I would shed no tears if whalers were killed), but the actions here are far short of killing the whalers.

So... would you accept it if a bunch of Ebola protecting people infected you with Ebola, and prevented all attempts at treatment on the grounds that it is the killing of Ebola?

Or how about Polio? Would you change your mind when your fingers start falling off?

The laws are there for a reason. If you start ignoring the law for whatever reason, then you had best be prepared when others start ignoring the law in ways that directly harm you.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 17:29
NERVRUN has pointed to Japanese *assertions* that they are not breaking the law, and what the Japanese cite in support of that argument.


As opposed to YOUR *assertion*? One that isn't backed up by international analysis for legality like Japans is when concerning claimed waters?


However, the Japanese actions remain very vile, whether the law is able to catch up to them or not.

And I think you're vile for arbitrary, emotive reasons that have no grounding in reality. Just like you. Isn't it fun?
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 17:30
Good. Then would you agree that current justification attempts for the actions of Sea Shepherd by Sea Shepherd and its supporters are insufficient in regards to their demonstratively criminal acts?

well, their legalistic argument is a bit wobbly, though they do have some sort of quasi-official status from time to time in various places. but the general principle they are acting on is solid.
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 17:33
So... would you accept it if a bunch of Ebola protecting people infected you with Ebola, and prevented all attempts at treatment on the grounds that it is the killing of Ebola?

Or how about Polio? Would you change your mind when your fingers start falling off?
You draw no distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent creatures?
I must assume then that you have no reason to think there is anything wrong with killing a child who annoys you.
Really, do you have any intention here except trolling, or do you want to discuss the issue?
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 17:35
As opposed to YOUR *assertion*? One that isn't backed up by international analysis for legality like Japans is when concerning claimed waters?
My assertion was that the only judicial decision on the issue was adverse to the Japanese. That has been posted on this thread already; various people have said they don't care what the Australian court ruled, but you were pretending the legal issue had been settled in Japan's favor, which no court, anywhere, has ruled.
And I think you're vile for arbitrary, emotive reasons that have no grounding in reality. Just like you. Isn't it fun?
I am speaking from reality. What the hell are you speaking from?
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 17:35
well, their legalistic argument is a bit wobbly, though they do have some sort of quasi-official status from time to time in various places. but the general principle they are acting on is solid.

Ah. So you are saying that they have international recognition as some form of policing agency with boarding and seizure, as well as destructive, of private vessels, rights?
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 17:37
You draw no distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent creatures?
I must assume then that you have no reason to think there is anything wrong with killing a child who annoys you.
Really, do you have any intention here except trolling, or do you want to discuss the issue?

Intelligence, based on animal research, seems to grant a wide range of intelligence to a great deal of animals up and down the spectrum of the world's fauna. Unless you are a vegan and grow your own food on a chemical and machine free farm in some sort of insect free biosphere, you would be quite the hypocrite to talk about distinction between intelligent and unintelligent creatures.

In fact, I would argue that using distinctions of intelligence as whether something can or can't be killed would be grounds for wiping out a goodly portion of humanity.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 17:40
My assertion was that the only judicial decision on the issue was adverse to the Japanese. That has been posted on this thread already; various people have said they don't care what the Australian court ruled, but you were pretending the legal issue had been settled in Japan's favor, which no court, anywhere, has ruled.

The Australian court has no grounds to rule what Japan can or cannot do in supposedly claimed territory which isn't recognized.

It has no more judicial power in the area than that American judge who ruled that Libya had to pay umpteen million dollars in damages.

Arguing that it is somehow a law, and that Japan is in breach of, is obfuscation at best.


I am speaking from reality. What the hell are you speaking from?

The same one you like to dip into when you make your specious arguments.
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 17:51
My assertion was that the only judicial decision on the issue was adverse to the Japanese. That has been posted on this thread already; various people have said they don't care what the Australian court ruled, but you were pretending the legal issue had been settled in Japan's favor, which no court, anywhere, has ruled.
No court needs to rule in their favour because hunting whales for the purpose of research is legal. The Australian court ruled that the Japanese fleet cannot legally hunt whales in what they consider to be Australian territory, not that nobody can ever hunt whales anywhere for any reason.
Hollensheadlia
18-01-2008, 18:03
no, it doesn't really fit that. the whalers are the 'combatants' in the relevant sense. in any case, you'd be better off clicking further through wiki to the definitions of terrorism page, and then noticing that there are like at least a million self-serving definitions that are basically unable to distinguish between distinct things. if terrorism means something, it means something that is different from standard military actions, from policing, from mob criminality, from assassination, from kidnapping, from sabotage on its own, etc. which is why we must use something more like the following:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought." (p. 28 of Political Terrorism by Schmid and Jongman, 1988)

(though i'm not sure about the semi-clandestine part, or the representative part, as they seem to rule out a few things that might be better kept in, as well as rule in some things that might be better kept out)

This is just semantics, since it has no bearing on the actual morality of the question at hand. Shall we simply call it attempted murder? Fine then, the individuals on the Sea Shepherd are attempted murderers.

That said, however, even a cursory look at the goals of organizations like this one is sufficient to reveal that the ultimate goal is not the deaths of crewman or the incapacitation of individual ships, but rather coercing from various societies and constituencies the momentum necessary to support revisions to international law, changes in Japanese maritime policy and other items consistent with their goal to prevent whale hunting in general. This is unequivocally terrorism.
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2008, 18:13
and if, for example, somebody comes to power and makes a law saying that it is now lawful to round up members of minority group x and hack them to death with machetes?

lawful don't mean shit. never has, never will.



oh, ok, so you don't know what 'other' means then.

In the US, that would be impossible to have happen, and you know it.


So, you think there's only one Japanese whaling ship?
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 18:17
Intelligence, based on animal research, seems to grant a wide range of intelligence to a great deal of animals up and down the spectrum of the world's fauna.
I have, I hope, made it clear that to me it is a matter of shades of grey, not black-and-white. You evidently draw a black-and-white line where empathy should only extend to members of the human species; the Japanese culture draws a black-and-white line where empathy should only extend to members of the Japanese race. I see their whaling as part of the same pattern as the Japanese refusal to acknowledge anything wrong in their treatment of the Korean comfort women or in the surgical experiments without anesthesia on prisoners of war and suchlike atrocities which in Germany would have been denounced long ago. Japan was forbidden a military to prevent its being a continued danger to its neighbors, and I am uneasy about the extent to which they have been permitted to rearm; it is, of course, because Japan does not have the power to stop the Sea Shepherds by force that we are having this controversy.

Ifreann:No court needs to rule in their favour because hunting whales for the purpose of research is legal.

That rather depends on what "research" means. The letter which NERVRUN posted cited statements by the "Scientific Committee" of the whaling commission that some of this "research" has been valuable to their purposes, and says that you can go to the commission's website for more info: so I did so, and found that the "purpose" of the Scientific Committee is to determine what killing limits should be imposed to avoid extincting the species, for which ends of course information about reproductive rates and the surviving levels of biochemical diversity are useful-- but this is rather circular, to kill for no purpose except to experiment with how much killing you can get away with, and I would say this no more advances scientific knowledge than Mengele's similar research (you, I expect, consider Mengele's case very different because the species experimented on was H. sapiens; I do not see that distinction as being as large as you probably do). I admittedly only know a few people in the marine biology field, but I do not know of any who find the Japanese "scientific" justification to be anything but a sham.
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 18:23
That rather depends on what "research" means.
Does the law against whale hunting that includes this exception say so?
The letter which NERVRUN posted cited statements by the "Scientific Committee" of the whaling commission that some of this "research" has been valuable to their purposes, and says that you can go to the commission's website for more info: so I did so, and found that the "purpose" of the Scientific Committee is to determine what killing limits should be imposed to avoid extincting the species, for which ends of course information about reproductive rates and the surviving levels of biochemical diversity are useful-- but this is rather circular, to kill for no purpose except to experiment with how much killing you can get away with, and I would say this no more advances scientific knowledge than Mengele's similar research (you, I expect, consider Mengele's case very different because the species experimented on was H. sapiens; I do not see that distinction as being as large as you probably do). I admittedly only know a few people in the marine biology field, but I do not know of any who find the Japanese "scientific" justification to be anything but a sham.

You seem to be operating under the impression that I think the Japanese should be allowed to hunt whales. I do not think this at all. However, I also think that Sea Shepherd should not be allowed to use violence to stop the Japanese from hunting whales.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 18:38
I have, I hope, made it clear that to me it is a matter of shades of grey, not black-and-white.


No you didn't.


You evidently draw a black-and-white line where empathy should only extend to members of the human species;


No. I draw a black and white line as to the application of the law. Sea Shepherd commits criminal acts against Japanese ships in order to stop a legal, if undesirable, act.

Claiming that it is an illegal act by Japan that somehow justifies even more illegal acts to stop it, when the initial act itself isn't illegal, is something I will not accept.

You don't get to ignore the law just because it's convenient for you.
Cletustan
18-01-2008, 18:51
Sea Shepperd, along with Greenpeace, ALF, ELF and PETA, are all terrorist organizations
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 18:58
Does the law against whale hunting that includes this exception say so?
?
The meaning of EVERY law necessarily depends on the meaning of the words it contains. In the case of a national law, a national court will construe it, and in that context the words mean whatever the court says they do, and it doesn't matter if you think the word-usage is insanely inconsistent with the dictionary definition, or whatever. But here, as usually with international "laws", there really is no particular court charged with its interpretation (the Australian court, as pointed out above, could only rule on whether to keep it out of Australia; and even that doesn't mean much unless the Australian navy is willing to back up the court's interpretation of how far "Australia" extends). You and I are equally competent as anyone else to say what the law "means". I would not dignify what the Japanese are doing with the word "research"; neither, it is my impression, would professional "researchers".


You seem to be operating under the impression that I think the Japanese should be allowed to hunt whales. I do not think this at all. However, I also think that Sea Shepherd should not be allowed to use violence to stop the Japanese from hunting whales.
Not to decide is to decide.
Not allowing anyone to stop it = Allowing it to go on
Do you favor navies stopping the Japanese? In the meantime, what do you advocate?
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 19:03
Not to decide is to decide.
Not allowing anyone to stop it = Allowing it to go on
False dichotomy. I don't think Sea Shepherd have any authority to stop whale hunts of any kind. That doesn't mean I don't think anybody has any authority to do so.
Do you favor navies stopping the Japanese? In the meantime, what do you advocate?

I favour the law being changed to eliminate this loophole. Perhaps the establishing of some group which can grant permits to harvest a limited number of whales for research purposes after assessing the potential value of the research weighed against the damage to the ecosystem. Perhaps a flat ban on whaling. I'm not sure. Ultimately I favour exhausting all other means before resorting to violence to solve this problem.
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 19:06
No. I draw a black and white line as to the application of the law. Sea Shepherd commits criminal acts against Japanese ships in order to stop a legal, if undesirable, act.

Claiming that it is an illegal act by Japan that somehow justifies even more illegal acts to stop it, when the initial act itself isn't illegal, is something I will not accept.

You don't get to ignore the law just because it's convenient for you.
I of course do not agree with you that "the initial act itself isn't illegal". And: you say that the Sea Shepherds aren't the police; well, neither are the whalers. There really is no international police force, and that is why what "is" or "isn't" illegal in matters of international law is up for grabs. The whalers consider their actions to be "defense of self" and the Sea Sheperds consider their actions to be "defense of others". But the whalers have a simpler option for defending their safety: they could stay home. If you acknowledge that it is "undesirable" for them to be going out (even though you do not see it as profoundly repugnant as I do), then there's a simple answer.
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 19:14
False dichotomy. I don't think Sea Shepherd have any authority to stop whale hunts of any kind. That doesn't mean I don't think anybody has any authority to do so.
Well yes, unfortunately it does mean that, until the changes of the sort you suggest are actually in place: nobody has authority, if no private parties do (unless the Australian navy decides that the court's decision gives it cover to chase the Japanese out-- I don't see that as very likely).
UN Protectorates
18-01-2008, 19:18
Hmm. After some personal research, I can now say I'd agree that the Sea Shephards are in fact acting completely illegally in thier vigilantism. Had I known that they were using butyric acid against whalers, and attempting to sabotage ships, and the like, I wouldn't have praised them as highly, to say the least.

However, I still maintain that the whalers are also acting illegally, by Australian law at least, if not international, because they were whaling within the Australian EEZ, specifically the designated whale sanctuary. The Australian navy should intern whalers who continue to attempt this.
The Parkus Empire
18-01-2008, 19:18
snip*

These people are not "terrorists" unless terror is their main weapon. I do not even believe it is in their arsenal. Sabotage and theft do not constitute "terror".
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 19:21
Well yes, unfortunately it does mean that, until the changes of the sort you suggest are actually in place: nobody has authority, if no private parties do (unless the Australian navy decides that the court's decision gives it cover to chase the Japanese out-- I don't see that as very likely).

And putting the changes in place are how I think they should be stopped. Not by sabotaging and attacking their ships and endangering their crews.
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 19:23
If some competent authority does in fact take action, I would completely agree that private parties should stay out of it.
As long as it remains anarchic, then of course both sides will keep doing whatever they can get away with. The Sea Sheperds shouldn't be surprised if they are treated harshly when they are caught, and the whalers shouldn't be surprised to take flak either.
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 19:27
If some competent authority does in fact take action, I would completely agree that private parties should stay out of it.
As long as it remains anarchic, then of course both sides will keep doing whatever they can get away with. The Sea Sheperds shouldn't be surprised if they are treated harshly when they are caught, and the whalers shouldn't be surprised to take flak either.

If no laws are being broken why would any authority take any action? You know, apart from action against Sea Shepherd, who clearly are breaking several laws.
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 19:44
Didn't I mention the Australian Federal Court found that the whalers are in violation of Australian law by whaling in the EEZ, and whale sanctuary? Pardon me, but this fact just seems to be ignored.

Plenty of other people mentioned that the Australian claim on that territory is not recognised internationally.
UN Protectorates
18-01-2008, 19:44
If no laws are being broken why would any authority take any action? You know, apart from action against Sea Shepherd, who clearly are breaking several laws.

Didn't I mention the Australian Federal Court found that the whalers are in violation of Australian law by whaling in the EEZ, and whale sanctuary? Pardon me, but this fact just seems to be ignored.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 19:55
I of course do not agree with you that "the initial act itself isn't illegal". And: you say that the Sea Shepherds aren't the police; well, neither are the whalers. There really is no international police force, and that is why what "is" or "isn't" illegal in matters of international law is up for grabs.


Piracy is internationally recognized as illegal and pirates, if caught, are subject to criminal prosecution. If you disagree, you had better watch out the next time you enter international waters or airspace.


The whalers consider their actions to be "defense of self" and the Sea Sheperds consider their actions to be "defense of others". But the whalers have a simpler option for defending their safety: they could stay home. If you acknowledge that it is "undesirable" for them to be going out (even though you do not see it as profoundly repugnant as I do), then there's a simple answer.

Using this argument, it would then be justifiable for me to use lethal force to prevent you from ever leaving your home on the grounds that you might kill something. You arbitrarily assign some intrinsic value to whales that elevates them above other species, and by nature of what you advocate, including your own. Thereby, there is no reason why I should assign a value to your life that is higher than another species to which I am free to assign a greater value to. If you cannot accept that, then you are a hypocrite.

The criminal acts here are clear. Sea Shepherd members illegally boarded a sea going private vessel and had made attacks against similar vessels. Such acts are criminal in any country and are recognized as piracy.

You can shout until you turn blue that it isn't, but the you will find no law supporting your stance.

If you want to argue a position with me, never, ever, use a hypocritical stance like that again.
Non Aligned States
18-01-2008, 19:57
Didn't I mention the Australian Federal Court found that the whalers are in violation of Australian law by whaling in the EEZ, and whale sanctuary? Pardon me, but this fact just seems to be ignored.

The territories claimed by Australia where the rulings are applied to are not recognized as Australian territory. This has been mentioned before.

Else I could declare myself judge, jury and executioner, and declare that your home is now part of my territory, and that your tenancy is a violation of my law.
Ifreann
18-01-2008, 20:02
Even if it isn't, you can't say they aren't acting illegally under any justice system, and that there is no authority who believes they are acting illegally. They're acting illegally under Australian law, and Australian authorities are considering enforcing this law.

Even then, it's not what they're doing that is the problem, but where they're doing it.
UN Protectorates
18-01-2008, 20:03
Plenty of other people mentioned that the Australian claim on that territory is not recognised internationally.

Even if it isn't, you can't say they aren't acting illegally under any justice system, and that there is no authority who believes they are acting illegally. They're acting illegally under Australian law, and Australian authorities are considering enforcing this law.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 20:19
Ah. So you are saying that they have international recognition as some form of policing agency with boarding and seizure, as well as destructive, of private vessels, rights?

no, though they are occasionally acting in official partnership with various nations. as i said, quasi-official. but my point cares nothing for official recognition - japanese whalers must be prevented from whaling. if they do not cease their unjust acts, then the only alternative in the face of inaction by other forces is to stop them yourself.
Free Soviets
18-01-2008, 20:28
In the US, that would be impossible to have happen, and you know it.

i don't believe you, but even if true so fucking what? you claimed that mere legality is a relevant distinction. i pointed out the inherent problem in that position, namely that really awful shit can be made legal. do you have a real counter-argument?

So, you think there's only one Japanese whaling ship?

and we are back to declaring all military actions ever to be terrorism, since they only attack some of the enemies forces but hope to cause the entirety of them to surrender.

this is fucking dumb.
Jello Biafra
18-01-2008, 21:28
And putting the changes in place are how I think they should be stopped.And what should occur in the meantime? (Between now and when the changes are implemented.)
Tmutarakhan
18-01-2008, 22:28
If no laws are being broken why would any authority take any action? You know, apart from action against Sea Shepherd, who clearly are breaking several laws.

I was responding to UN Protectorate, who said that since the Australian court held that the whalers were breaking the law, the Australian navy might enforce that. I hadn't thought that likely, but maybe it is happening. If other nations do not recognize Australia's right to enforce laws in that area of the ocean, they could send their own navies to interdict, but I would think this even less likely. Japan is forbidden to have a navy, because of crimes for which the Japanese have shown no signs of rehabilitation.

Non-Aligned: Using this argument, it would then be justifiable for me to use lethal force to prevent you from ever leaving your home on the grounds that you might kill something.

What if I am going out with the EXPRESSED INTENTION of killing? Does no-one have the right to stop me?

Non-Aligned: You arbitrarily assign some intrinsic value to whales that elevates them above other species, and by nature of what you advocate, including your own.

There is nothing "arbitrary" about assigning intrinsic value to conscious beings; failure to do so removes any basis, except an arbitrary one, for assigning any intrinsic value to humans.
And I do not value whales "above" the human species; I am not sure where you are getting that.
NERVUN
19-01-2008, 02:24
How much minced infant meat do you find in Tsuruya?
Uh... none. Don't let your emotions run away with you.

We have never had occasion to regret letting Germany rebuild, but Japan still has a deep strain of savagery, and it is past time that Japan learn it is not acceptable.
Funny, but the Japanese can and have said the same thing about Australians.
NERVUN
19-01-2008, 02:26
Japan is forbidden to have a navy, because of crimes for which the Japanese have shown no signs of rehabilitation.
1. Japan does indeed have a navy, the Marine Self Defense Force, which most of its ships come from either the US or include top line US naval technology. 2. PLEASE don't get me started on Japan and how it has looked at WWII.
Nova Pictavia
19-01-2008, 03:32
Erm... it wasn't an act of Eco-terrorism at all. Not unless the "Eco-terrorists" were wearing very frightening masks that terrified the whalers.

At most, this is an illegal protest.
Gun Manufacturers
19-01-2008, 03:35
i don't believe you, but even if true so fucking what? you claimed that mere legality is a relevant distinction. i pointed out the inherent problem in that position, namely that really awful shit can be made legal. do you have a real counter-argument?



and we are back to declaring all military actions ever to be terrorism, since they only attack some of the enemies forces but hope to cause the entirety of them to surrender.

this is fucking dumb.

Regarding your hypothetical situation, check the 14th Amendment (specifically the clause regarding equal protection under the law). It would prevent any attempt to legalize the slaughter of a demographic, as that would be discrimination against that demographic. If you don't believe me, then believe that.

And we can go round and round about the question of legality entering into definitions. You won't listen to my arguments, and you have put forth nothing but a flawed hypothetical to try to change my mind. So I'm done with this argument.
Free Soviets
19-01-2008, 03:51
Regarding your hypothetical situation, check the 14th Amendment (specifically the clause regarding equal protection under the law). It would prevent any attempt to legalize the slaughter of a demographic, as that would be discrimination against that demographic. If you don't believe me, then believe that.

And we can go round and round about the question of legality entering into definitions. You won't listen to my arguments, and you have put forth nothing but a flawed hypothetical to try to change my mind. So I'm done with this argument.

dude. just...dude. this isn't even an abstract issue - there are concrete real examples of countries legalizing for their agents precisely what would clearly and unambiguously be terrorism if it were done by anybody else. if you think legality plays any relevant role at all in defining terrorism, you are literally saying that if the new terrorism-loving government of san marino officially authorizes the slamming a hijacked civilian airliner into a public grade school in order to create a general climate of terror in italy in order to get the italian state to cave to their demands, then that isn't terrorism.

as a more general point, genocide has been legally mandated in the past. therefore mere legality is never sufficient reason to make a claim about the rightness or wrongness of a thing. it is almost always irrelevant to any real discussion, except when discussing tactical questions about what you can get away with.

and your faith in constitutions is sad and naive.
Tmutarakhan
19-01-2008, 03:52
Uh... none. Don't let your emotions run away with you.
The point was that I do not see "whale meat" and "infant meat" as being very different. Of course it is not "the same", but I would put it on the same level as "chimp meat" or "dog meat", and would feel about someone who eats such things about like you would feel about a sentient blob of fecal matter.
Funny, but the Japanese can and have said the same thing about Australians.
But without a similar-sized pile of corpses to justify their saying so.
Japan does indeed have a navy, the Marine Self Defense Force, which most of its ships come from either the US or include top line US naval technology.
I am very sorry to hear that.
PLEASE don't get me started on Japan and how it has looked at WWII.
Actually, I *would* be interested (if you think we could avoid getting into a mud-wrestle about it; I promise I would try). My information, of course, is all from a distance.
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 04:21
no, though they are occasionally acting in official partnership with various nations. as i said, quasi-official. but my point cares nothing for official recognition - japanese whalers must be prevented from whaling. if they do not cease their unjust acts, then the only alternative in the face of inaction by other forces is to stop them yourself.

Ah. So moral grounds is sufficient for extra-legal actions?

Would you support the likes of Fred Phelps if he went about actively hanging gays?

How about the KKK? ALF? The Tamil Tigers? There are so many others who believe what they do is just and morally right.

Why should you justify only one form of moral grounds for extra-legal actions and not another?
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 04:30
What if I am going out with the EXPRESSED INTENTION of killing? Does no-one have the right to stop me?


You might be going out to eat chicken. I'm sure I could find some of the more radical ALF members who would be more than happy to incarcerate you for life for just that.

Would you be happy with that? Or would you castigate it because it inconveniences you?

If you want to argue moral grounds for law breaking, then you have no grounds to argue when other people apply their morals to breaking laws in ways that harm you.


There is nothing "arbitrary" about assigning intrinsic value to conscious beings; failure to do so removes any basis, except an arbitrary one, for assigning any intrinsic value to humans.

It's arbitrary when you use that intrinsic value to justify illegal acts.


And I do not value whales "above" the human species; I am not sure where you are getting that.

Oh?


Whether that would be right in this case depends on the value you put on whales (personally I would think that *eating* the whalers would be going too far, but I would shed no tears if whalers were killed)
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 04:33
But without a similar-sized pile of corpses to justify their saying so.


Less aborigines than there were Chinese to slaughter. But that doesn't make the Australian practices of slaughter against the aborigines any less horrific.
Redwulf
19-01-2008, 04:33
So... would you accept it if a bunch of Ebola protecting people infected you with Ebola, and prevented all attempts at treatment on the grounds that it is the killing of Ebola?

You're saying the Japanese are infected with whales? :confused:
Tmutarakhan
19-01-2008, 04:36
Ah. So moral grounds is sufficient for extra-legal actions?

Would you support the likes of Fred Phelps if he went about actively hanging gays?
No, I'd kill him, extra-legally if need be.

How about the KKK? ALF? The Tamil Tigers? There are so many others who believe what they do is just and morally right.

Why should you justify only one form of moral grounds for extra-legal actions and not another?
Obviously, what each of us "justifies" is what WE consider to be moral, and we don't justify things that we don't consider to be moral. Since people tend to disagree, there are local monopolies of force, called governments, which do their best to make it hard to get away with violations of some locally-derived imperfect-consensus version of morality called "the law".
There is no global monopoly of force, so "international law" is something we can all argue about, but it doesn't mean much in the practical sense except what the different nations actually do agree to enforce with their various local powers. The Japanese, according to NERVUN, do have a navy of sorts, but apparently one insufficient to enforce the Japanese conception of their rights so far from home; the Australians have a navy which is more likely to enforce what the Australian conception of what right is.
If no such overwhelming forces intervene, then it will be as in the book of Judges, ba-yomim ha-hem ein melekh b-Yisrael w-'asah ish eth-ha-tov b-'eyn-ow, In those days, there was no king in Israel, and each did what was good in his own eyes.
Fall of Empire
19-01-2008, 04:48
no, though they are occasionally acting in official partnership with various nations. as i said, quasi-official. but my point cares nothing for official recognition - japanese whalers must be prevented from whaling. if they do not cease their unjust acts, then the only alternative in the face of inaction by other forces is to stop them yourself.

Can you do me a favor? Tell me what you think of abortion bombers.
Free Soviets
19-01-2008, 04:59
Ah. So moral grounds is sufficient for extra-legal actions?

sometimes, yes. obviously. you almost certainly agree with this yourself.

Would you support the likes of Fred Phelps if he went about actively hanging gays?

How about the KKK? ALF? The Tamil Tigers? There are so many others who believe what they do is just and morally right. Why should you justify only one form of moral grounds for extra-legal actions and not another?

believing what you are doing to be just and right is not the same as it actually being so. there are solid arguments against whaling in a way that there just aren't any in favor of using terrorist tactics to keep black people in line and out of town.

we know that recourse to legality as the arbitrator is inherently unworkable, on pain of having to allow genocide. since we presumably don't want to allow genocide, even if the genocide is legally sanctioned, we must, of necessity, move to some other position in order to stand against it. likewise, we cannot adopt a might makes right position for the same reason. the place that is available to us is that of making and evaluating ethical arguments through the use of reason and appeals to our moral intuitions and sensibilities.
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 05:07
You're saying the Japanese are infected with whales? :confused:

No. I'm saying this weird concept that it's alright to commit whatever crimes you want on the basis of moral grounds had better not be a double standard when it's you in the line of fire.
Fall of Empire
19-01-2008, 05:07
sometimes, yes. obviously. you almost certainly agree with this yourself.



believing what you are doing to be just and right is not the same as it actually being so. there are solid arguments against whaling in a way that there just aren't any in favor of using terrorist tactics to keep black people in line and out of town.

we know that recourse to legality as the arbitrator is inherently unworkable, on pain of having to allow genocide. since we presumably don't want to allow genocide, even if the genocide is legally sanctioned, we must, of necessity, move to some other position in order to stand against it. likewise, we cannot adopt a might makes right position for the same reason. the place that is available to us is that of making and evaluating ethical arguments through the use of reason and appeals to our moral intuitions and sensibilities.

So may I take that as a yes, you do support anti-abortion fanatics?
Free Soviets
19-01-2008, 05:11
Can you do me a favor? Tell me what you think of abortion bombers.

completely unjustified. after all, there is no good argument at all in favor of their essential position on the personhood of blastocysts and the necessity of engaging in their defense, and at least two completely independent and killer arguments against such.

but imagine if there was a good argument on their side, imagine if we did have good reason to think that both blastocysts were deserving of the protections of personhood and that women ought be forced to carry them - imagine that abortion really was murder. in the face of official inaction (and, indeed, active official support for abortion), wouldn't blowing up abortion clinics be exactly the right thing to do, or at least among the realm of possible right courses of action? after all, there are thousands of murders happening - don't you have an obligation to stop them if you can?
Fall of Empire
19-01-2008, 05:21
completely unjustified. after all, there is no good argument at all in favor of their essential position on the personhood of blastocysts and the necessity of engaging in their defense, and at least two completely independent and killer arguments against such.

but imagine if there was a good argument on their side, imagine if we did have good reason to think that both blastocysts were deserving of the protections of personhood and that women ought be forced to carry them - imagine that abortion really was murder. in the face of official inaction (and, indeed, active official support for abortion), wouldn't blowing up abortion clinics be exactly the right thing to do, or at least among the realm of possible right courses of action? after all, there are thousands of murders happening - don't you have an obligation to stop them if you can?

Good answer. I'm satisfied.
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 05:24
No, I'd kill him, extra-legally if need be.

Ah, so then obviously you are being hypocritical. Since you won't allow someone else's morality to break the law. Only yours.


Obviously, what each of us "justifies" is what WE consider to be moral, and we don't justify things that we don't consider to be moral. Since people tend to disagree, there are local monopolies of force, called governments, which do their best to make it hard to get away with violations of some locally-derived imperfect-consensus version of morality called "the law".


Piracy is piracy. It's recognized as such by every government throughout the world. The only people who don't recognize it are those trying to market themselves as something positive. In other words, liars.


The Japanese, according to NERVUN, do have a navy of sorts, but apparently one insufficient to enforce the Japanese conception of their rights so far from home; the Australians have a navy which is more likely to enforce what the Australian conception of what right is.


Pfft. You have no idea do you? Outside of internationally recognized territorial waters, the only laws that can apply are international waters. That's why gambling cruise ships don't allow gambling until they're outside territorial waters of nations that don't illegalize gambling.

Japan cannot enforce home laws outside its waters, and as much as Australia moans about it, it cannot enforce home laws in waters nobody recognizes as theirs.


If no such overwhelming forces intervene, then it will be as in the book of Judges, ba-yomim ha-hem ein melekh b-Yisrael w-'asah ish eth-ha-tov b-'eyn-ow, In those days, there was no king in Israel, and each did what was good in his own eyes.

Ah yes, anarchy. Good as you see it. So why don't you let the likes of the KKK do as they please hmm? After all, they see it as good.

Oh, but you can't accept that. Only YOUR version of morality is valid. Everyone else's isn't.
NERVUN
19-01-2008, 05:37
The point was that I do not see "whale meat" and "infant meat" as being very different. Of course it is not "the same", but I would put it on the same level as "chimp meat" or "dog meat", and would feel about someone who eats such things about like you would feel about a sentient blob of fecal matter.
Last year the town I live and (then) worked in employed two gaikokujin (Foreigners) to teach English in its junior high and elementary schools. I was the junior high teacher and the elementary school teacher was from Australia. During June, the town had an International Day where everyone was invited to bring food to share with the local gaikokujin being asked to make some food from their home countries to introduce to the Japanese.

My Australian friend and co-worker arranged to import and cook some very Australian dishes for the occasion, namely kangaroo and crocodile meat.

Now, most of us (Gaikokujin and Japanese) elected to try the dishes, but there were a few people, including some children, who were horrified to eat what they considered to be a cute, cuddly, animal (The kangaroo meat) and they couldn't understand how Australia and Australians could be so cruel to kill and eat such an animal.

So please tell me how this is very different from eating whales?

But without a similar-sized pile of corpses to justify their saying so.
The phrase "Stolen generation" comes to mind.

Actually, I *would* be interested (if you think we could avoid getting into a mud-wrestle about it; I promise I would try). My information, of course, is all from a distance.
Make a thread for it and you'll probably get myself and Distilla in it to answer.
Tmutarakhan
19-01-2008, 05:42
You might be going out to eat chicken. I'm sure I could find some of the more radical ALF members who would be more than happy to incarcerate you for life for just that.
They don't have many allies, so I am not too worried about it.

Would you be happy with that? Or would you castigate it because it inconveniences you?
I would "castigate" it because I would consider it wrong, whether it was myself or someone else.

If you want to argue moral grounds for law breaking, then you have no grounds to argue when other people apply their morals to breaking laws in ways that harm you.
If they are doing "harm", I consider it wrong. If they are under the impression that doing harm is not wrong, then I consider them mistaken, as well as wrong. I do not base morality on "whatever is written in a law book", and I hope that you do not either: otherwise, you are saying that you would have gone along with "the law" in Nazi Germany also.



It's arbitrary when you use that intrinsic value to justify illegal acts.
? No, it's not "arbitrary", unless you are using the word in some very peculiar sense. I give intrinsic value to chimps and whales (to a lesser extent than to humans; to a rather lesser extent still, to monkeys and dogs and cats; to a very much lesser extent, to other mammals, and so on down the line) FOR THE SAME REASON that I give intrinsic value to humans. I cannot tell whether you are just being obtuse when you argue "You do it for no reason at all, and therefore must agree with this absurd hypothetical about people doing things for little or no reason", or if you just don't get it.

What is YOUR reason for giving any intrinsic value to humans? You make it sound as if you have no reason except "it is in the law book" (in which case, you would stop giving any value to humans if you lived under Naziism or any other regime where the law did not give value to human life). Perhaps it is just because "I am human"? In that case, you might be diverted down the path of defining your circle of concern more narrowly: Japanese tend not to give any intrinsic value to humans who are not Japanese (I am not saying this is a unique trait of that culture: as elsewhere pointed out, white Australians tended in the past-- and some still do-- to deny value to any human who isn't white; my own country is America, and need I say more?) which has everything to do with why the notion of extending the circle of common more *widely* than the human species is so alien to them.


Oh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmutarakhan
Whether that would be right in this case depends on the value you put on whales (personally I would think that *eating* the whalers would be going too far, but I would shed no tears if whalers were killed)

Ah!
Yes, that was an ill-tempered and ugly remark on my part, I apologize. No, I would not advocate Sea Shepherds escalating to deadly force; the whalers would respond in kind, and could not be blamed for that, and I would shed no tears for Sea Shepherds either if they sought out a firefight and ended up on the losing side.
Less aborigines than there were Chinese to slaughter. But that doesn't make the Australian practices of slaughter against the aborigines any less horrific.
I agree. Every nation has some savageries in its past; humans are just animals, after all.
But Japan made itself a danger to a large part of the world, in a not-so-long-ago time (my parents still remember), and is under some disabilities about projecting force beyond its borders as a result. Germany also made itself a grave danger, but the Germans have made great efforts to show that they have changed. NERVUN implies that the Japanese have engaged in more soul-searching and penitence than they are credited for; but until it is *apparent* to everyone that Japan has changed, sharp restrictions on their force-projection will continue, and therefore they will be dependent on the good will of other nations for protection of their shipping. This has everything to do with why Japanese whaling ships are "targets of opportunity" here.
You speak about "the law" as if it were well-defined, and had some power in and of itself, but "the law" is just what those who have power are willing to enforce. We can argue all day about what "the law" in this case, but from my point of view: until the Australian navy moves in, THERE IS NO "LAW"; if they do move in, we will know which side "broke the law" when we see which side the ships fire warning shots at!
NERVUN
19-01-2008, 05:48
There is no global monopoly of force, so "international law" is something we can all argue about, but it doesn't mean much in the practical sense except what the different nations actually do agree to enforce with their various local powers. The Japanese, according to NERVUN, do have a navy of sorts, but apparently one insufficient to enforce the Japanese conception of their rights so far from home; the Australians have a navy which is more likely to enforce what the Australian conception of what right is.
You misread that, Japan has a blue water navy that can indeed project its force where it wants to, it is constrained by Article 9 to not do so however. But, current Japanese views of Article 9 notes that while Japan forever renounces war as way to settle international disputes, it has NOT given up the right to self-defense, which if Australian naval ships attacked Japanese ones in international waters would be seen in such a light. Not to mention that other nations would probably not appreciate Australia acting in such a unilateral manner.

Even the Australian Federal Government acknowledges this, which is why it currently has customs ships shadowing Japan's whalers to gather evidence for a case at the international court to determine if Japan has indeed violated international law, not Australian law.

In in any case, the JMSDF:
The Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) has an authorized strength of 46,000 and maintains some 45,800 personnel and operates 119 major warships, including twenty submarines, fifty-three destroyers and frigates, twenty-nine mine warfare ships and boats, nine patrol craft, and nine amphibious ships. It also flies some 179 fixed-wing aircraft and 135 helicopters. Most of these aircraft are used in antisubmarine and mine warfare operations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force

While the Australian Royal Navy: Today's fleet consists of around 60 vessels including frigates, submarines, patrol boats and auxiliary ships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Navy


Before doing some chest thumping, you might want to look up the capabilities of each.
Tmutarakhan
19-01-2008, 05:51
Ah, so then obviously you are being hypocritical. Since you won't allow someone else's morality to break the law. Only yours.
Of course, since mine is right, and his isn't!
I mean seriously, what do you expect? What I think is right, I think is right. What I don't think is right, I don't think is right. That's rather tautological.



Piracy is piracy. It's recognized as such by every government throughout the world.
But you cannot say that every government throughout the world recognizes what the Sea Shepherds are doing as piracy, unless every government in the world throughout the world sends its navy to arrest. So far, no government has done so.

Japan cannot enforce home laws outside its waters, and as much as Australia moans about it, it cannot enforce home laws in waters nobody recognizes as theirs.
Sure it CAN. Whether it WILL is another question. It is seriously unlikely that another navy will come in to interdict them, but they might refrain for fear that other nations would express disapproval through other consequences.



Ah yes, anarchy. Good as you see it. So why don't you let the likes of the KKK do as they please hmm?
Because I am not living in an anarchy. I would expect the police to act against them. If I am somewhere where there are police, then as a matter of FACT, not morality, they will do what they will do, and my recourse would be to shoot them first, if I can.
NERVUN
19-01-2008, 05:55
Japanese tend not to give any intrinsic value to humans who are not Japanese (I am not saying this is a unique trait of that culture: as elsewhere pointed out, white Australians tended in the past-- and some still do-- to deny value to any human who isn't white; my own country is America, and need I say more?) which has everything to do with why the notion of extending the circle of common more *widely* than the human species is so alien to them.
Very wrong generalization of Japanese as a whole.

But Japan made itself a danger to a large part of the world, in a not-so-long-ago time (my parents still remember), and is under some disabilities about projecting force beyond its borders as a result. Germany also made itself a grave danger, but the Germans have made great efforts to show that they have changed. NERVUN implies that the Japanese have engaged in more soul-searching and penitence than they are credited for; but until it is *apparent* to everyone that Japan has changed, sharp restrictions on their force-projection will continue, and therefore they will be dependent on the good will of other nations for protection of their shipping.
One, said war was over 60 years ago, the Japan of 2008 is NOT the Empire of Great Japan from the 1930's and 40's. Two, the restrictions on Japan's force projection ability is Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, which Japan itself has maintained over the years long after the Allied Occupation packed up and left and sovereignty restored to the Japanese government. Japan and the Japanese have indeed renounced war, and continue to do so in the face of increasing pressure to change by the rest of the world, particularly the US.
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 05:57
sometimes, yes. obviously. you almost certainly agree with this yourself.


My only condition for attempts at moral justification is that you had better be damn well prepared for it to bite you in the ass, and be happy about it.

And if we threw out rule of law whenever it was convenient to, we might as well not have it.


believing what you are doing to be just and right is not the same as it actually being so. there are solid arguments against whaling in a way that there just aren't any in favor of using terrorist tactics to keep black people in line and out of town.

And? Conservation and ecological balance arguments aside, what are these solid arguments that go against whaling? Let's pick something similar. How do these arguments fundamentally differ from say, that used by ALF, or maybe some new group of deadly virus supporting activists.


we know that recourse to legality as the arbitrator is inherently unworkable, on pain of having to allow genocide. since we presumably don't want to allow genocide, even if the genocide is legally sanctioned, we must, of necessity, move to some other position in order to stand against it. likewise, we cannot adopt a might makes right position for the same reason. the place that is available to us is that of making and evaluating ethical arguments through the use of reason and appeals to our moral intuitions and sensibilities.

Moral intuitions and sensibilities? To the KKK, non-whites are subhuman, and that the elevation of them to equal status as human goes against their moralities and sensibilities. To someone like AP, capitalists are also subhuman, and deserving of extermination.

What makes their sensibilities and ethics less valid than yours? A peculiar set of morals that may not be shared by another person? Isn't that just another "my way is better because I say so" argument?
Straughn
19-01-2008, 06:05
Whales:0

The whales lose no matter what.

:(
True.
I, for one, would welcome our whale overlords. Gladly.
Tmutarakhan
19-01-2008, 06:12
My Australian friend and co-worker arranged to import and cook some very Australian dishes for the occasion, namely kangaroo and crocodile meat.

Now, most of us (Gaikokujin and Japanese) elected to try the dishes, but there were a few people, including some children, who were horrified to eat what they considered to be a cute, cuddly, animal (The kangaroo meat) and they couldn't understand how Australia and Australians could be so cruel to kill and eat such an animal.

So please tell me how this is very different from eating whales?
I put intrinsic value on humans, and creatures of similar consciousness, for their "souls", not their bodies. Valuing the kangaroo because it looks "cute" comes across to me as a very shallow attitude.
You misread that, Japan has a blue water navy that can indeed project its force where it wants to, it is constrained by Article 9 to not do so however. But, current Japanese views of Article 9 notes that while Japan forever renounces war as way to settle international disputes, it has NOT given up the right to self-defense, which if Australian naval ships attacked Japanese ones in international waters would be seen in such a light. Not to mention that other nations would probably not appreciate Australia acting in such a unilateral manner.
I am quite surprised to learn that Japan has been allowed to remilitarize to this extent. I tend to agree with you that Australia would be wary of offending "other nations" by forcibly asserting its dubious Antarctic claims. This is why this situation is likely to remain an anarchy for the time being. But I think "other nations" would also react with grave alarm if Japan projected force beyond its home waters: China for dead certain, Russia nearly as certainly (are Russia and Japan still technically in a state of war?), and while the US government would I think be inclined to Japan's side, popular sentiment against it would limit what the US could do.

But the topic of lingering WWII attitudes is, as you say, probably better moved to a separate thread. Look for it tomorrow: I keep getting logged off in the middle of trying to post, so it would be too aggravating for me to attempt a thread-start tonight.
Tmutarakhan
19-01-2008, 06:18
What makes their sensibilities and ethics less valid than yours? A peculiar set of morals that may not be shared by another person? Isn't that just another "my way is better because I say so" argument?
You are equally wedded to the proposition that ONLY NON-ALIGNED-STATES' MORALITY IS VALID. Your peculiar set of morals is based on the principle "whatever it says in the law books, is it". That may or may not be shared by another person. There are other people out there who do share the legalist moral outlook; but you are a minority, you know. The morality of avoiding harm to others is more widely shared, with some disagreements obviously about how widely the scope of "others" should be defined. You give this false dichotomy: either agree with legalism, or consider every moral perspective the same as every other-- which is not a position that anybody takes.
Free Soviets
19-01-2008, 06:20
Moral intuitions and sensibilities? To the KKK, non-whites are subhuman, and that the elevation of them to equal status as human goes against their moralities and sensibilities. To someone like AP, capitalists are also subhuman, and deserving of extermination.

What makes their sensibilities and ethics less valid than yours? A peculiar set of morals that may not be shared by another person? Isn't that just another "my way is better because I say so" argument?

well, the fact is that their alleged moral intuitions about moral relevance are almost certainly incompatible with other moral intuitions they have, and their bigoted ones will not be the ones that survive rational examination. also, they will run into a bit of trouble arguing in favor of them, what with the utter lack of good arguments on their side.
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 06:23
Of course, since mine is right, and his isn't!
I mean seriously, what do you expect? What I think is right, I think is right. What I don't think is right, I don't think is right. That's rather tautological.


So if my right is different from your right, it becomes a matter of who's right has bigger and more might then does it?


But you cannot say that every government throughout the world recognizes what the Sea Shepherds are doing as piracy, unless every government in the world throughout the world sends its navy to arrest. So far, no government has done so.

Governments don't actively hunt pirates outside their waters. If the Sea Shepherds were to try and enter UK waters, they will find their ships boarded and seized as pirate vessels.


Sure it CAN.

Not legally. That would be extra-legal actions. A navy cannot enforce its national laws outside of its borders.


Whether it WILL is another question. It is seriously unlikely that another navy will come in to interdict them, but they might refrain for fear that other nations would express disapproval through other consequences.


If Japan were to do any such thing, Australia might be tempted to try, which would lead to a possible armed standoff when they come to a head.

Neither would be legally right.


Because I am not living in an anarchy. I would expect the police to act against them. If I am somewhere where there are police, then as a matter of FACT, not morality, they will do what they will do, and my recourse would be to shoot them first, if I can.

But you advocate anarchic concepts of making and breaking law as you see fit. The police, and by extension, the law, would be the antithesis to this advocation.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Silvat
19-01-2008, 06:23
Way To Go Sea Shepard!

You can argue with me all day, but save your bandwidth. I know which side is the right one to be on.
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 06:25
well, the fact is that their alleged moral intuitions about moral relevance are almost certainly incompatible with other moral intuitions they have

Such as?


and their bigoted ones will not be the ones that survive rational examination. also, they will run into a bit of trouble arguing in favor of them, what with the utter lack of good arguments on their side.

Define rational examination in a way that cannot be used to pick apart your argument.

Also, define "good" arguments.
NERVUN
19-01-2008, 06:35
I put intrinsic value on humans, and creatures of similar consciousness, for their "souls", not their bodies. Valuing the kangaroo because it looks "cute" comes across to me as a very shallow attitude.
Why do you think that kangaroos have less soul than whales?

I am quite surprised to learn that Japan has been allowed to remilitarize to this extent. I tend to agree with you that Australia would be wary of offending "other nations" by forcibly asserting its dubious Antarctic claims. This is why this situation is likely to remain an anarchy for the time being. But I think "other nations" would also react with grave alarm if Japan projected force beyond its home waters: China for dead certain, Russia nearly as certainly (are Russia and Japan still technically in a state of war?), and while the US government would I think be inclined to Japan's side, popular sentiment against it would limit what the US could do.
Allowed? Allowed? Japan wasn't allowed to rearm, it was forced to, by the US, almost before the ink was dry on Article 9 in order to contain both Communist China and the USSR. Japan has been in other waters than its home waters, most recently (and will be again in a few weeks) the Indian Ocean to refuel ships engaged in the US War on Terror (much to loud arguments and debates in Japan about if this violates Article 9).

But, yes, Japan and Russia technically remain at war and WWII is still on going.

But the topic of lingering WWII attitudes is, as you say, probably better moved to a separate thread. Look for it tomorrow: I keep getting logged off in the middle of trying to post, so it would be too aggravating for me to attempt a thread-start tonight.
I will wait for that thread then to post more information.
Tmutarakhan
19-01-2008, 06:41
So if my right is different from your right, it becomes a matter of who's right has bigger and more might then does it?
As far as the FACTUAL question of whose concept of right will actually be implemented, yes.



Governments don't actively hunt pirates outside their waters.
And you are saying these are nobody's waters.
If the Sea Shepherds were to try and enter UK waters, they will find their ships boarded and seized as pirate vessels.
I doubt it. We'll see.



A navy cannot enforce its national laws outside of its borders.
Again you are misunderstanding the basic word "can". Of course a navy CAN do a lot of things. You presumably mean "a navy *ought* not..."

But you advocate anarchic concepts of making and breaking law as you see fit.
I have advocated no such thing. I am trying to explain to you the "legal realist" view: there ISN'T any such thing as "the law" except in so far as there is a power enforcing it. That is a factual question, separate from the moral question.
Most of us live where the laws are generally reasonable and ought to be obeyed. Sometimes there most definitely is such a thing as "the law" (Nazi Germany), but morally it ought not be obeyed. In Antarctic waters, there is no such thing as "the law", unless some navy actually starts patrolling there; until then, people will do what they choose to do; whalers will throw harpoons; Sea Shepherds will make as much trouble for them as they can; and the whalers will try to catch them. We can advocate that some outside power ought to intervene to stop one side or the other from doing what it is doing; we have sharp disagreements here about which side ought to be stopped, if such a thing happens; intervention, by whichever governmental power, if it happens, would be *creating* a state of law, in place of what is currently an anarchy. I am not *advocating* that Antarctica remain an anarchy; I am *observing* that at present it is so, and likely to remain so.
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 07:12
You are equally wedded to the proposition that ONLY NON-ALIGNED-STATES' MORALITY IS VALID.

Pfft. Morality? Me? Surely you jest.

I don't particularly care for arguments of morality. They are too often used to justify all manner of acts that are ultimately detrimental to everyone involved, and are just as easily reversed when they encounter someone else's morality that is used to harm them.

Try using non-emotive, logically based arguments. You might have something then.

They don't have many allies, so I am not too worried about it.

It only takes one person to pull a trigger. As for not having many allies, are you saying that public support is a necessity for "Moral" crusades now?


I would "castigate" it because I would consider it wrong, whether it was myself or someone else.


So you consider it "wrong". But they are using "moral" stances. Just like you. Do you like being a hypocrite that much?


If they are doing "harm", I consider it wrong. If they are under the impression that doing harm is not wrong, then I consider them mistaken, as well as wrong.

Oh? And what constitutes "harm"? Does throwing acid, attempted hijacking and endangerment classify as "harm"? Or is it only "harm" when applied to you?


I do not base morality on "whatever is written in a law book", and I hope that you do not either: otherwise, you are saying that you would have gone along with "the law" in Nazi Germany also.

Ahh, the Nazi argument. Not a new one. If we use an all encompassing "harm" argument, then obviously, they would be wrong.

I could go on and list the staggering set of if and then conditions required to explain the issue, but I will merely summarize it as follows.

Laws in, and of themselves, should not have harm of the primary subjects of the law as the end goal. It is self destructive.


? No, it's not "arbitrary", unless you are using the word in some very peculiar sense.

Perhaps.


What is YOUR reason for giving any intrinsic value to humans? You make it sound as if you have no reason except "it is in the law book" (in which case, you would stop giving any value to humans if you lived under Naziism or any other regime where the law did not give value to human life). Perhaps it is just because "I am human"? In that case, you might be diverted down the path of defining your circle of concern more narrowly: Japanese tend not to give any intrinsic value to humans who are not Japanese (I am not saying this is a unique trait of that culture: as elsewhere pointed out, white Australians tended in the past-- and some still do-- to deny value to any human who isn't white; my own country is America, and need I say more?) which has everything to do with why the notion of extending the circle of common more *widely* than the human species is so alien to them.

Species loyalty perhaps. I do not place any value on any one particular subset of ethnic groups above any other.


Ah!
Yes, that was an ill-tempered and ugly remark on my part, I apologize. No, I would not advocate Sea Shepherds escalating to deadly force; the whalers would respond in kind, and could not be blamed for that, and I would shed no tears for Sea Shepherds either if they sought out a firefight and ended up on the losing side.

Noted.


But Japan made itself a danger to a large part of the world, in a not-so-long-ago time (my parents still remember), and is under some disabilities about projecting force beyond its borders as a result.


Unless you and your parents were part of the ethnic groups that Japanese Imperial forces targeted for brutality and slaughter, and spent years under Japanese occupation trying not to get killed when they felt like brutalizing someone, do not talk to me about the danger Japan presented to the world 60 years ago.


but until it is *apparent* to everyone that Japan has changed, sharp restrictions on their force-projection will continue, and therefore they will be dependent on the good will of other nations for protection of their shipping.


Japan today is not the Imperial Japan of 60 years ago. They hold onto strong anti-war sentiment even though the ones who wrote the restrictions into their constitution, the Americans, are pressuring them to remove it.


You speak about "the law" as if it were well-defined, and had some power in and of itself, but "the law" is just what those who have power are willing to enforce. We can argue all day about what "the law" in this case, but from my point of view: until the Australian navy moves in, THERE IS NO "LAW"; if they do move in, we will know which side "broke the law" when we see which side the ships fire warning shots at!

So if I were to shoot down every passenger jet, sink every ship and butcher every survivor on a major travel route in international waters, I would have broken no laws so long as there is no military presence?
Free Soviets
19-01-2008, 08:20
Pfft. Morality? Me? Surely you jest.

I don't particularly care for arguments of morality.
...
Laws in, and of themselves, should not have harm of the primary subjects of the law as the end goal.

either you do or do not care for arguments of morality. you can't have it both ways. especially not in the same post.
Free Soviets
19-01-2008, 08:27
Such as? depends on the alleged intuitions in question, doesn't it? in any case, there ain't no plausible justification available for holding race to be morally relevant for determining moral inclusion and exclusion.

Define rational examination in a way that cannot be used to pick apart your argument.

Also, define "good" arguments.

rational examination means being subjected to critical analysis, logic, counter-examples, hypotheticals, etc. good arguments are arguments that are valid and have true (or at least reasonable, justifiable, or something similar) premises.

why would i want to define rational examination in a way that would preclude picking apart my argument if my argument was flawed?
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 12:15
either you do or do not care for arguments of morality. you can't have it both ways. especially not in the same post.

I see you left out the reason for the statement. As I mentioned before, it is a self-destructive law, that ultimately leads the way for stagnation of the country that put the law in place. Especially since the laws would be targetting it's primary resource, the citizenry. Pragmatism has nothing to do with morality.

depends on the alleged intuitions in question, doesn't it? in any case, there ain't no plausible justification available for holding race to be morally relevant for determining moral inclusion and exclusion.

Of course, this would be based on your existing moral framework wouldn't it? I could see logical arguments against it, but from a moral standpoint, nothing that cannot be turned back on itself.

But you haven't answered the question. Pick any two moral intuitions you believe the target demographic has that are incompatible with one another. You have made the assertion, it is up to you to prove your case.


rational examination means being subjected to critical analysis, logic, counter-examples, hypotheticals, etc. good arguments are arguments that are valid and have true (or at least reasonable, justifiable, or something similar) premises.

Good. Now using these criteria you have outlined, can you demonstrate why the motives of the activists are fundamentally superior to that of say, criminal militant faction known as the Army of God.


why would i want to define rational examination in a way that would preclude picking apart my argument if my argument was flawed?

A reasonable assumption on my part is that you believe your argument is flawless, or otherwise free of defects that could be detrimental to its primary message. As such, I asked you to provide a means of defining rational examination that presumes such a stance, primarily because it would require you to utilize your argument and compare it to the rational examination before posting it.

Besides, it would be silly if I asked you to define a rational examination that could be used to pick apart your argument.
Laerod
19-01-2008, 12:23
But, yes, Japan and Russia technically remain at war and WWII is still on going.WWII was technically still going on until 94 in Europe.
Neu Leonstein
19-01-2008, 12:43
Now, most of us (Gaikokujin and Japanese) elected to try the dishes, but there were a few people, including some children, who were horrified to eat what they considered to be a cute, cuddly, animal (The kangaroo meat) and they couldn't understand how Australia and Australians could be so cruel to kill and eat such an animal.

So please tell me how this is very different from eating whales?
Well, one difference worth noting is that kangaroos aren't exactly endangered, while Minke Whales are classified as "Near Threatened", and some of the other species apparently up for "research" are in even worse shape.

Then there is of course a question of sentience, which I'm in no position to answer conclusively. Nonetheless, it seems to me that whales are higher up the ladder, as it were, and are on a social level certainly more likely to feel the loss of one of their group for example. And in that case, you're doing something which we might call significant "emotional" damage as well, which prompts me at least to start asking questions. Kangaroos are no smarter than any other species living that sort of lifestyle. If one of theirs gets killed, they probably forget it within a day.

And finally there is the ethical question of using a loophole to do something that was agreed not to be allowed anymore. Even from a purely game-theoretical approach you can see the issue, and that is what the Australian court case was all about - the decision that the research is in fact a front and that the hunt is therefore in breach of the moratorium. Even if none of the other arguments sway you, this one should.

So these ideas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8lvep0-Ii0) about kangaroo meat and whale meat being equivalent are stupid and clear evidence that some people in Japan don't even bother understanding the reasons why someone might be opposed to the hunt.
NERVUN
19-01-2008, 13:21
Well, one difference worth noting is that kangaroos aren't exactly endangered, while Minke Whales are classified as "Near Threatened", and some of the other species apparently up for "research" are in even worse shape.
It should be noted that neat threatened is the next step down on the list from least concern, where kangaroos are. I find no reason there.

Then there is of course a question of sentience, which I'm in no position to answer conclusively. Nonetheless, it seems to me that whales are higher up the ladder, as it were, and are on a social level certainly more likely to feel the loss of one of their group for example. And in that case, you're doing something which we might call significant "emotional" damage as well, which prompts me at least to start asking questions. Kangaroos are no smarter than any other species living that sort of lifestyle. If one of theirs gets killed, they probably forget it within a day.
I see a lot of maybe's, seems to me's, and might's in that statement. That's not an argument from logic, or facts as it were. We simply don't know about how cognitive whales are, nor has that stopped humans from killing and eating rather intelligent creatures, such as pigs.

And finally there is the ethical question of using a loophole to do something that was agreed not to be allowed anymore. Even from a purely game-theoretical approach you can see the issue, and that is what the Australian court case was all about - the decision that the research is in fact a front and that the hunt is therefore in breach of the moratorium. Even if none of the other arguments sway you, this one should.
Well, at least you finally have an actual argument here.

So these ideas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8lvep0-Ii0) about kangaroo meat and whale meat being equivalent are stupid and clear evidence that some people in Japan don't even bother understanding the reasons why someone might be opposed to the hunt.
Granted, I wouldn't equate them and that video was very much off the mark; however, I have to agree with the Japanese that a lot of the arguments presented pretty much amount to emotional appeals just because other countries don't like what they eat. There's far, far better arguments that don't require the appeals to emotion that have been going on in this thread.

I brought up the kangaroo meat event in my town precisely because it does show the flip side to it. Australians see nothing wrong with eating roos, other people disagree and I'd be willing to bet that Aussies would be rather pissed off if they suddenly found themselves in an international spot light with everyone else in the world telling them they are barbarians for killing and eating them.
Neu Leonstein
19-01-2008, 13:58
It should be noted that neat threatened is the next step down on the list from least concern, where kangaroos are. I find no reason there.
Though apparently the southern ones are also considered "conservation dependent", which is something to consider. Nonetheless, one could probably make an argument that if the hunt was kept only to the Minke Whales, that wouldn't by itself be a problem.

As for Kangaroos, there are of course many species. Only a few can be hunted legally, which are the ones of which there are a lot. Apparently the number of Kangaroos increased from somewhere around 20 million to 51 million since commercial hunting was allowed, and the quotas have been on the increase in an attempt to preserve both farmland and habitats from what appears to be something of an imbalance. Though I think the hunt is only done at night for some reason, which might make it hard to distinguish between species at times.

I see a lot of maybe's, seems to me's, and might's in that statement. That's not an argument from logic, or facts as it were.
That's just because I know very little about the facts. I would think studies and research (mainly of the non-lethal variety...) has been done to figure many of these things out. It's just not my area of expertise though. Nonetheless, I know that dolphins are extremely intelligent, capable of learning very quickly, creativity, some self-recognition and apparently even the use of tools (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/25/8939).

Considering how closely they are related with whales, and knowing the sort of stuff humpbacks are capable of, I certainly wouldn't make it a default position that Minkes are stupid.

We simply don't know about how cognitive whales are, nor has that stopped humans from killing and eating rather intelligent creatures, such as pigs.
Again, I don't know enough to compare pigs and whales. What I have heard is that pigs are very good at problem-solving, but not much more than that.

Granted, I wouldn't equate them and that video was very much off the mark; however, I have to agree with the Japanese that a lot of the arguments presented pretty much amount to emotional appeals just because other countries don't like what they eat.
Hey, I certainly have emotional problems with it too. Particularly the fact that it seems very hard to kill a whale without putting it through a lot of pain. It's quite easy to kill a pig quickly and relatively painlessly - to kill a whale you have to fire a glorified grenade into it and hope the little bit you hit was close to the brain. Not particularly humane, as it were.

And before you start: I have the same problem with many other sorts of hunting.

Australians see nothing wrong with eating roos, other people disagree and I'd be willing to bet that Aussies would be rather pissed off if they suddenly found themselves in an international spot light with everyone else in the world telling them they are barbarians for killing and eating them.
Still, that's a pretty useless point to make. By the same token I could say that there may be Buddhist monks who take offense at me killing a fly, and therefore any criticism of you killing a person is invalid.

Fact of the matter is that the two are different animals, capable of different social relations and complex creative actions, at different levels of genetic stability at a species level and with very different legal status. Pretty much the only thing in common is that both are mammals which get killed for food.

Maybe the best solution would be to give the IWC some teeth. At the moment it is basically a joke because members are allowed to treat it as such.
Dyakovo
19-01-2008, 17:03
Ah. So moral grounds is sufficient for extra-legal actions?

Would you support the likes of Fred Phelps if he went about actively hanging gays?

How about the KKK? ALF? The Tamil Tigers? There are so many others who believe what they do is just and morally right.

Why should you justify only one form of moral grounds for extra-legal actions and not another?

No, FS's rules apply only to measures he supports. An act which would be considered terrorism anywhere else isn't terrorism when done in support of something he supports
Free Soviets
19-01-2008, 19:24
I see you left out the reason for the statement. As I mentioned before, it is a self-destructive law, that ultimately leads the way for stagnation of the country that put the law in place. Especially since the laws would be targetting it's primary resource, the citizenry. Pragmatism has nothing to do with morality.

yes, it does. you made a normative claim about what should be done. that there is ethical territory.

Of course, this would be based on your existing moral framework wouldn't it? I could see logical arguments against it, but from a moral standpoint, nothing that cannot be turned back on itself.

i think you have an odd perspective on moral argumentation. if there are logical arguments against, and the premises for those arguments are better/more reasonable than those of the arguments (or, more likely, illogical rantings)

But you haven't answered the question. Pick any two moral intuitions you believe the target demographic has that are incompatible with one another. You have made the assertion, it is up to you to prove your case.

i'm just trying to avoid making a strawman of our hypothetical racist. but typically your average racist isn't satisfied with just hating the darkies - they think they have reasons for doing so. these reasons include various claims of inferiority in particular respects, and it is because of those aspects that they exclude people from moral consideration. but, in addition to those reasons being just plain untrue as population-level generalizations, it will almost certainly turn out that members of their proposed moral in-group share those 'inferiorities' and yet remain included. so, contradiction. this happens all the fucking time when you talk to racists.

and if we do find a racist that is content with just claiming that skin color itself as a vital morally relevant difference maker, well, frankly they just will not be able to provide a compelling case to anyone else at all. and it seems that they could quite plausibly be made into acting against that alleged intuition merely by being blinded and meeting people of different races without knowing that fact. thus their claims of it being a real difference maker are rather hollow.

Good. Now using these criteria you have outlined, can you demonstrate why the motives of the activists are fundamentally superior to that of say, criminal militant faction known as the Army of God.

already answered in a post a page or two back. but, again, there are arguments for the moral consideration of whales and protection of this particular population that there aren't for the full personhood of blastocysts, the obligation to force women to maintain those blastocysts, and the equivalence of abortion to murder. in fact, there are killer arguments against all three. i'm sure you've seen them here before.
Free Soviets
19-01-2008, 22:45
No, FS's rules apply only to measures he supports. An act which would be considered terrorism anywhere else isn't terrorism when done in support of something he supports

you are aware that you haven't actually gotten around to showing that my definition of terrorism is either undesirable on its own or that i use it in an inconsistent and self-serving manner. perhaps you'd like to try actually doing so? or at the very least, demonstrating how some other definition is more useful/better captures what we intend to get across by the term? all you've got so far is ad homs.
Dyakovo
20-01-2008, 01:30
you are aware that you haven't actually gotten around to showing that my definition of terrorism is either undesirable on its own or that i use it in an inconsistent and self-serving manner. perhaps you'd like to try actually doing so? or at the very least, demonstrating how some other definition is more useful/better captures what we intend to get across by the term? all you've got so far is ad homs.

I along with others have, in this thread (and others) provided definitions for terrorism, you, as usual have ignored them.


Terrorism, in the modern sense,[1] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

The sense of moral condemnation is built in the definition of the concept of terrorism (i.e. terrorism is an attack on those who morally should be immune from attack). On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, just as murder, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: While, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can in theory conceive of cases in which evil of terrorism is outweighed by important goods that can be achieved in no morally less costly way, in practice utilitarians often universally reject terrorism because it is very dubious that acts of terrorism achieve important goods in a utility efficient manner, or that the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism." [3] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism is always morally wrong but at the same time those who engaged in terrorism can be morally justified in one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so." [3]

As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilizing an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause.

Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[4] The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war.

An International Round Table on Constructing Peace, Deconstructing Terror (2004) hosted by Strategic Foresight Group recommended that a distinction should be made between terrorism and acts of terror. While acts of terrorism are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including the actual acts, the perpetrators of acts of terrorism themselves and their motives. There is disagreement on definitions of terrorism. However, there is an intellectual consensus globally, that acts of terrorism should not be accepted under any circumstances. This is reflected in all important conventions including the United Nations counter terrorism strategy, the decisions of the Madrid Conference on terrorism, the Strategic Foresight Group and ALDE Round Tables at the European Parliament.
The word "terrorism" was first used in reference to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. A 1988 study by the United States Army found that more than one hundred definitions of the word exist and have been used.[5] In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes, and "terrorism" is defined by statute; see definition of terrorism for particular definitions. Common principles among legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country and would, thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.[6] In November 2004, a United Nations Security Council report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." (Note that this report does not constitute international law.)[7] U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) defined terrorism as: “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
Redwulf
20-01-2008, 01:44
Ah. So moral grounds is sufficient for extra-legal actions?

So, you're saying those who helped slaves escape via the underground rail road were wrong to break the law to do so?

Would you support the likes of Fred Phelps if he went about actively hanging gays?

How about the KKK? ALF? The Tamil Tigers? There are so many others who believe what they do is just and morally right.

Why should you justify only one form of moral grounds for extra-legal actions and not another?

Because none of these groups has valid moral grounds for their actions.
Redwulf
20-01-2008, 01:50
completely unjustified. after all, there is no good argument at all in favor of their essential position on the personhood of blastocysts and the necessity of engaging in their defense, and at least two completely independent and killer arguments against such.

but imagine if there was a good argument on their side, imagine if we did have good reason to think that both blastocysts were deserving of the protections of personhood and that women ought be forced to carry them - imagine that abortion really was murder. in the face of official inaction (and, indeed, active official support for abortion), wouldn't blowing up abortion clinics be exactly the right thing to do, or at least among the realm of possible right courses of action? after all, there are thousands of murders happening - don't you have an obligation to stop them if you can?

No. There are still innocent people in the clinic, including the very blastocysts you're hoping to save. That's like when Bush said we should have stopped the holocaust by blowing up the camps. I could however see shooting the doctors known to provide abortions in this scenario.
Non Aligned States
20-01-2008, 04:10
yes, it does. you made a normative claim about what should be done. that there is ethical territory.


Well, you are quite free to do so, if shooting yourself in the foot is your thing (law with harm as a goal). But as I've said before, it's self destructive, and ultimately, not very conducive to the long term health of the country. Assuming I was in a position to do so, I wouldn't stop you, but I would probably attempt to acquire the more useful parts of the demographic the law intends to harm.


i think you have an odd perspective on moral argumentation. if there are logical arguments against, and the premises for those arguments are better/more reasonable than those of the arguments (or, more likely, illogical rantings)

Then by all means, do list these logical arguments. I have already mentioned before that I could understand and accept arguments based on species conservation and ecological balance since several economies rely on that balance. But nobody seems interested in doing that, going more along the Disney-esque attempts at humanizing them.


i'm just trying to avoid making a strawman of our hypothetical racist. but typically your average racist isn't satisfied with just hating the darkies - they think they have reasons for doing so. these reasons include various claims of inferiority in particular respects, and it is because of those aspects that they exclude people from moral consideration. but, in addition to those reasons being just plain untrue as population-level generalizations, it will almost certainly turn out that members of their proposed moral in-group share those 'inferiorities' and yet remain included. so, contradiction. this happens all the fucking time when you talk to racists.

Very good. A contradiction outlined. Now then, wouldn't that same contradiction also apply to animal activists who only work on selective species using, at best, factually shaky claims of sapience, yet exclude other animals that exhibit similar characteristics, albeit now physically similar?


and if we do find a racist that is content with just claiming that skin color itself as a vital morally relevant difference maker, well, frankly they just will not be able to provide a compelling case to anyone else at all. and it seems that they could quite plausibly be made into acting against that alleged intuition merely by being blinded and meeting people of different races without knowing that fact. thus their claims of it being a real difference maker are rather hollow.

This one isn't a contradiction however, and is out of the scope of the question asked.


already answered in a post a page or two back. but, again, there are arguments for the moral consideration of whales and protection of this particular population that there aren't for the full personhood of blastocysts, the obligation to force women to maintain those blastocysts, and the equivalence of abortion to murder. in fact, there are killer arguments against all three. i'm sure you've seen them here before.

Aside from logical considerations of species preservation and ecological balance, all three aspects use rather emotive moralistic arguments that tend to fall apart upon proper inspection.

And yes, I've seen all of them before. Being on NSG for several years tends to expose you to all the hashed out arguments.
Non Aligned States
20-01-2008, 04:11
So, you're saying those who helped slaves escape via the underground rail road were wrong to break the law to do so?


Because none of these groups has valid moral grounds for their actions.


I could however see shooting the doctors known to provide abortions in this scenario.

The irony! It burns!
Redwulf
20-01-2008, 05:18
The irony! It burns!

Considering the two separate points being argued (one of which was a hypothetical scenario in which it was presumed to be an incontrovertible FACT, rather than a minority opinion, that abortion is murder) I fail to see the irony at all. Now please answer my question, were those who freed slaves even though it was against the law to do so right or wrong in doing so? If you feel that they were in the right to break the law in that instance then you admit that in some cases being morally right on the issue DOES give you the right to break the law. If you think they were wrong to free the slaves from their owners . . . well then I just don't know what to say.
Non Aligned States
20-01-2008, 07:50
Considering the two separate points being argued (one of which was a hypothetical scenario in which it was presumed to be an incontrovertible FACT, rather than a minority opinion, that abortion is murder) I fail to see the irony at all.


Both events did occur. Both were supposedly based of moral justifications from two different groups of people. You have stated one group does not have the moral grounds to do commit murder, yet in the next sentence, you say that you could see shooting doctors (presumably to kill), in that scenario.


Now please answer my question, were those who freed slaves even though it was against the law to do so right or wrong in doing so? If you feel that they were in the right to break the law in that instance then you admit that in some cases being morally right on the issue DOES give you the right to break the law. If you think they were wrong to free the slaves from their owners . . . well then I just don't know what to say.

Considering the original constitution of the United States at its forming, I would have to say that the issue is muddy, because the laws that enable slavery would be at odds with the whole "liberty and justice for all".

Even if we discount that though, slavery, as a whole, is something I cannot assign values of right or wrong on, on the basis that there are many forms of it. If we use the American version of slavery, I would have to say that it, as with laws that promote harm against a demographic, are counter-intuitive to the long term benefit of the nation as a whole since it encourages stagnation.

The ones who ran the underground railroad for escaped and liberated slaves, I cannot assign values of right or wrong until I know in detail the hows and whys of what they did.
Tmutarakhan
21-01-2008, 21:42
Pardon my tardiness; I have been off-line a couple days.
Why do you think that kangaroos have less soul than whales?
They're stupider than sheep, where whales are smarter than most primates. I object to inflicting pain unnecessarily on kangaroos or sheep, but if slaughtered humanely I have no particular qualms.
I would say, however, that the visceral repugnance of those who don't feel right about eating kangaroos should be respected to the extent that it would be wrong to *pressure* someone to eat kangaroo meat who didn't feel right about it. In the case at hand, the efforts to inflict whale meat on captive audiences who wouldn't eat it of their own accord adds to the repugnance of the behavior.


Allowed? Allowed? Japan wasn't allowed to rearm, it was forced to, by the US, almost before the ink was dry on Article 9 in order to contain both Communist China and the USSR. Japan has been in other waters than its home waters, most recently (and will be again in a few weeks) the Indian Ocean to refuel ships engaged in the US War on Terror (much to loud arguments and debates in Japan about if this violates Article 9).

But, yes, Japan and Russia technically remain at war and WWII is still on going.


I will wait for that thread then to post more information.

Much of this is news to me, I cannot claim to know much about it. Maybe I'll finally get around to starting a thread just for this.